Council's 'no' to CPO info
Bath residents wanting to find out if they have grounds for objecting to the forced sale of land for controversial transport projects are struggling to get the right information.
People living in Newbridge have been urged to contact a senior Guildhall official with legal queries over council proposals to compulsorily purchase nearly 60 pieces of land for the Bath Transportation Package.
-
CPO notice
But they say Bath and North East Somerset Council senior legal adviser Shaine Lewis is refusing to tell them what are legitimate grounds to object to the compulsory purchase orders.
B&NES is issuing four separate CPOs in connection with the construction of the Bus Rapid Transit route through Newbridge, the expansion of Newbridge Park and Ride site and the creation of a new park and ride site at Bathampton.
Campaigner Helen Samuel, who is leading opposition to the Newbridge Park and Ride expansion where a field next to the existing site is earmarked for a forced sale, said she had rung Mr Lewis to find out the ground rules for objecting to a CPO - but was told he could not help her.
She said: "The letter from B&NES said ring Shaine Lewis with any legal queries, so I thought Shaine Lewis was my man.
"He obviously knows the answers to these questions and it's a bit strange that he won't answer them.
"Why send a letter saying he will help you when he won't?"
Another resident, Karen Hill, said Mr Lewis had helped her with one query over the deadline for objections.
But she said: "I also had questions regarding statutory objectors if the plans were not called in for a public inquiry, and he was much less helpful on this. In fact no help at all.
"I asked him what the usual time frames were for compensation claims to be handed in and he recommended I seek legal advice."
A few days later, Mrs Hill was also given conflicting information by one of Mr Lewis’s colleagues as to whether she was a statutory objector - someone whose land is directly affected by, or may lose value because of, an order - entitled to be represented at a public inquiry or not.
She was first told that she was not, then - after challenging this view - 30 minutes later told that she was.As well as the field, the CPOs cover parts of some gardens in Ashley Avenue, business premises in Locksbrook Road, and an array of patches of land throughout Newbridge.
The council said residents and businesses affected should get their own indepedent legal advice.
A spokesman said: 'The council's legal officers are instructed to deal with the confirmation of the compulsory purchase orders and represent the council at any subsequent inquiry. In corresponding with the public, council legal officers may only give factual information on the CPO process, like the location of information documents.
"Giving advice on the legitimate grounds for opposing a CPO constitutes legal advice and would amount to a conflict of interest and possible accusations the council has given erroneous advice to any objectors. Furthermore, the council is not legally able nor insured to give legal advice to the public. Members of the public must seek their own independent legal advice."
Details of the orders are available on the council's website at www.bathnes.gov.uk/BathNES/transportandstreets/transportpolicy/plansandstrategies/bathpackage/Land+Acquisition+and+Compulsory+Purchase+Orders.htm#New
* This week's edition of The Bath Chronicle will carry an article by Thring Townsend Lee & Pembertons lawyer Gemma Featonby on CPOs and the grounds for objections to them.
23 Comments
View all
by Stacey, Bath
Tuesday, October 06 2009, 9:01PM
“Dave, Your comments were constructive and very helpful”
by Dave, Weston
Tuesday, October 06 2009, 9:47AM
“Vanessa - tucked away on the communities dot gov website is a publication which looks like it should be provided to anyone facing a CPO - inside it gives some guidance on the grounds for objection. From what I can see you can object either to the need for the scheme (i.e. we don't need to improve transit times from Newbridge) or the way of going about it (i.e. it would be better to use existing roads), or both. Pretty much the only thing which isn't valid is the level of compensation as that is determined at another seperate stage in the process.
I would do a link to the pdf file if I could but if you google for Compulsory Purchase Order Grounds Objection I think it comes up on the front page. That also brings up an interesting article on a solicitors website - just be slightly careful as they are a Scottish firm and the law there may be slightly different. I would also say don't be scared to put in "amateur" submissions - they have to be read even if the bits that aren't admissable get discounted.
I wasn't trying to be unhelpful with yesterday's comments - I'd like to see this wasteful scheme scrapped., I was just trying to outline the legal professional restrictions which might be at play here. (No I'm not a lawyer but I have had reason to learn a bit about this!)”
by Vanessa, Lower Weston
Tuesday, October 06 2009, 5:53AM
“www.response2route.co.uk is now fully functioning again after a temporary blip.
NS from Radstock: Thank you for alerting us!”
by mr c, psj
Monday, October 05 2009, 7:44PM
“It would be far better if the council compulsory purchased all the former railway land that ran from Green Park through to Saltford and Midsomer Norton and restored the train link to these places. Now that would reduce the amount of traffic comming into Bath.”
by NS, Radstock
Monday, October 05 2009, 6:26PM
“Vanessa: the response2route web link you gave is returning a server not found message.”
by Marko, Bath
Monday, October 05 2009, 6:15PM
“As a resident of Newbridge I welcome the Chronicle providing informative advice where the Council have actually treated me like an enemy who has to be conquered.”
by spa, Bath
Monday, October 05 2009, 6:10PM
“Vanessa - a lot of home insurance policies now have legal cover up to the tune of £50,000, and if not they still have free legal advice lines, manned by qualified legal peeps. worth trawling though the small print of you policy ;-)”
by Vanessa, Lower Weston
Monday, October 05 2009, 5:54PM
“Kirsten, you may be right, however unfortunately each time we have asked for info from the Council under FOI they take as long as they possibly can to provide the most meagre information they can get away with. We don't have time to waste waiting for a FOI request to come through, we need the information NOW.
Also, the council knows that we don't have thousands of pounds to spend on legal advice so they obviously think that if we don't get the information from their chap we simply won't get it.
Haeberling and chums have underestimated the residents of Newbridge from the start and I doubt they imagined in their wildest dreams that we could fight as we have been doing. It isn't going to stop now!
If anyone is a legal eagle and would be prepared to help us, please email via our website: response2route.co.uk
Thank you to everyone posting supportive comments on this and all the other Chronicle BRT stories, you're helping to show the GOSW and central government that the opponents are not simply NIMBY-types.”
by Kirsten, Bath
Monday, October 05 2009, 5:28PM
“I presume that if the requests are made under the Freedom of Information act, the council will have to supply it.”
by Eagle Eye, Bath
Monday, October 05 2009, 5:23PM
“QUOTE The council exists for us and I'm sure that in some twisted way it believes that making these proposals is for our benefitQUOTE
Yes, and the CPO objection procedure is a fail safe mechanisim to ensure that the Council genuinely is acting on the behalf of the elctorate.
That's why it is so very important that it is not bypassed.”