THE old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing was fully borne out by your three correspondents on the subject of the old Focus site (Times, May 31).

The meeting was held in Part II (behind closed doors) on the advice of the council's lawyers who were of the view that matters could be discussed which might prejudice subsequent legal proceedings. In the event, as Cllr Sherrell pointed out in his letter (June 7), this was not the case, however, the initial advice was sound.

Much of that which Mr Mathew had to say would have been appropriate had the council been discussing a planning application. This, however, was not the case. The only issue under debate was whether or not the council would seek leave from the High Court to initiate a judicial review of a planning decision.

It is for precisely the reasons that Mr Mathew set out that the council is seeking to judicially review its earlier decision. 

Following two court judgements elsewhere in the country, the council may well find itself in a position of being unable to adhere to its current and proposed future retail strategy for the area of land in question.

In July 2011 the council granted some minor amendments to a building on this site which was not intended to change the permitted class of use. Almost four months after this decision it was brought to the council's attention that recent case law involving two entirely separate cases in different courts elsewhere in the country, had established that conditions which attached to a single building were set aside if minor amendments were granted which permitted the building to be sub-divided.

As the problem was not apparent until after the expiry of the normally permitted period of three months in which to seek such a review, the council's only alternative is to apply to the High Court for leave to make an application outside of the three-month period.

The debate in council was solely on whether or not an application should be made to the court for an extension of time. The majority decision was that every effort should be made to preserve both the current and proposed retail strategy for the town and this point of view was further strengthened by the recently completed independent retail survey which makes clear recommendations in relation to this area of land which complement the current strategy.

The statutory position is that an officer of the council cannot seek to judicially review their own employer but a councillor is permitted to do so. Any one of the 31 West Devon Borough Councillors could have made the application but I felt that this matter was sufficiently serious that it would be appropriate to put my name on the letter and would clearly signal to any High Court judge that the matter was one of grave concern to the council.

The council neither has nor is doing anything to prevent a business from taking possession of the site and operating it within its current permitted 'Use Class'.  Neither is it preventing any business from submitting an application for a change of 'Use Class'.

Tavistock's retail strategy is designed to protect and enhance existing retail businesses both in the town centre and on the periphery and to encourage new business to develop and thrive and this council is and should be committed to the course of action which best serves these aims for the town and surrounding parishes. 

What is needed is serious unemotional debate and it is not helpful to read comments comparing the borough council to a totalitarian state. No doubt the writer thought it would make good media copy but it leaves me wondering whether he has the interests of the whole of Tavistock at heart or simply wishes to make a cheap political point.

Cllr Philip Sanders

Leader

West Devon Borough Council