Memorandum by the Brethren's Gospel Trusts
(STA 21)
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Our clients operate worldwide and throughout
Britain, where they are accepted as charitable organisations,
responsible for the provision and maintenance of Gospel Halls.
1.2 The need for a Code of Conduct is understood
and accepted.
1.3 However, our clients are concerned at
an inequitable application of the Code of Conduct, which we submit
calls into question the effectiveness of the Standards Board in
promoting and overseeing the Code of Conduct.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 We represent Charitable Gospel Trusts
established by Christians commonly known as "Brethren",
who have long established and growing congregations in many towns
and cities throughout Britain.
2.2 There are currently about 100 assemblies
of "Brethren" in Britain. Each assembly will typically
comprise a "City" hall as a focal gathering point, together
with several "local" halls to serve a more limited local
function in a neighbourhood.
2.3 There are about 400 halls throughout
Britain with about 15,000 communicants. Numbers continue to increase
and "planting" of new assemblies and an ongoing need
for new halls in existing areas continues. As a result of these
needs, our clients are active participants in the planning process,
both in pursuing an appropriate Development Plan policy framework
and in the planning Development Control process (ie planning applications).
2.4 Brethren, including Trustees of the
charitable Gospel Trusts, welcome the opportunities to testify
to authorities at national and local level in order to seek a
sympathetic understanding of their needs, and special limitations.
3. THE ROLE
AND EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE
STANDARDS BOARD
FOR ENGLAND
3.1 We note the detailed issues raised in
the Notice of the Inquiry and would wish to comment on the rules
governing the behaviour of members of local authorities, in particular
those serving on "Planning Committees".
3.2 We understand and appreciate the need
for appropriate regulation of relationships to ensure that, so
far as possible, scope for corruption is removed. Nonetheless,
we feel that there must continue to be opportunity for local authority
members to interact with applicants for planning permission, whether
or not they be their own constituents.
3.3 If planning applications are to be considered
in a balanced manner, it is often necessary for elected members
to be aware of wider background issues beyond pure policy, particularly
as to when the need for development may or may not amount to a
"material consideration" which may justify a departure
from such policy.
3.4 Contact between members and applicants
can often be of material. assistance to this end. However, in
our involvement with a number of Gospel Trusts, we have become
aware of a number of instances across the country where local
authority members are extremely reluctant, and often refusing,
to listen to applicants both prior to and after submission of
applications for fear of prejudicing their position at Committee.
3.5 This practice and interpretation of
the Code of Conduct is by no means universal and in some instances
members are prepared to accept informal contact prior to formal
submission, without any need for them to indicate any prejudicial
decision to support or oppose a proposal. Equally, we are aware
of a situation where members "hid" behind the Code of
Conduct in refusing contact with applicants but appeared to be
ready to accept ill informed adverse comments from neighbours.
3.6 For all, these reasons, we submit that
the effective promotion and overseeing the Code of Conduct by
the Standards Board for England is questionable and has led to
an inequality of treatment of applicants and objectors. We consider
that there is a definite need for a clear directive to members
as to the extent to which they may interact with applicants and
objectors. We submit that it can only be beneficial to members
to make themselves fully aware of the complexities of the background
to an application, to enable them to judge for themselves the
sincerity, or otherwise, of the applicants concerned. In our submission
this should not commit them to the support of or opposition to
an application, such as to be prejudicial to an unbiased handling
of an application.
J R Shephard
October 2004
| 
