An MHK has accused the environment minister of failing to protect the planning process.
Kate Lord-Brennan made the criticism after decisions on Manx Telecom telegraph pole applications were delegated to a former minister who overturned appeal inspector recommendations.
Clare Barber told the House of Keys she delegated the decisions after meeting with Manx Telecom representatives, saying she took the view that it “would not be appropriate” for her to be involved due to a perceived conflict of interest.
“I made it clear at the outset that such engagement would give rise to a conflict of interest, should those applications or any related appeals come before me as minister,” Mrs Barber said.
Decisions overturned
The minister confirmed that of seven telegraph pole appeals in Peel decided by Lawrie Hooper, two saw him reject the inspector’s recommendation that they be refused.
In two further cases, Mr Hooper accepted the inspector’s recommendation to reject the applications. The remaining three were permitted, in line with the inspector’s view.
Mrs Barber said: “Mr Hooper, as the person who took that appeal, has to give his reasons as to why that is, and that is all part of the process. I do not feel that there is anything that has been done out with what is allowed and is appropriate within our law as defined.”
But Ms Lord-Brennan challenged the minister directly: “Whose side is the minister on? Is she on the side of the public, is she on the side of Manx Telecom, is she on the side of Mr Hooper, or is she on the side of the process and the policy?”
Responding, Mrs Barber said: “In the case of planning, I don’t believe that there is any need to take a side. I believe it is right that the process is allowed to be followed as it is laid down in law.”
Delegation decisions
The minister revealed that of 11 Manx Telecom pole appeals delegated to date, 10 went to Mr Hooper and one to Dr Michelle Haywood. No other members were approached.
Asked why she did not delegate to her own departmental member, John Wannenburgh, Mrs Barber said she had made clear at his appointment that she would not delegate planning appeals to him “because he had made comment on previous telegraph pole appeals in different areas”.
She added that she had “not routinely delegated to other ministers” and sought people with “availability within their workload” who had been “carrying out appeals for me”.
Concerns over consistency
Rob Callister, chair of the planning committee, asked how the department could achieve greater consistency when two delegated members reached different conclusions on similar applications in Ramsey and Peel.
In response, Mrs Barber told members: “You can have two things that materially would appear to be on paper very similar, but of course the specific considerations about a given area have to be looked at.”
Ms Lord-Brennan further pressed the minister on whether she was concerned that delegated decisions had gone against appeal inspector recommendations.
“Delegation is not abdication. Ultimately, that responsibility sits with her. Why is she not taking much more interest in the outcome?” she asked.
Mrs Barber responded: “When I delegate a decision, I give that to a person who makes that decision in its entirety. That is not a decision, therefore, that I am involved in.
“But I have not got any concerns with anyone who I’ve delegated decisions to, and I have done them all in good faith.”
Legal challenge warning
In a separate question, Mrs Barber told the House that residents unhappy with planning appeal outcomes could pursue a legal challenge in the courts.
She said officers would explain that “the remaining process for challenging that decision is by way of a petition of doliance. That is not advice or encouragement to pursue such a route, but simply an explanation of the legal position”.
On whether the department would seek to recover legal costs if such a challenge failed, Mrs Barber said the department “has the option to seek to recover costs. Whether or not that would be pursued would depend on the circumstances of the individual case.”
Ms Lord-Brennan said the process had “failed because of political decisions at the end” and urged the minister to give a commitment not to seek costs should residents pursue legal action.
Mrs Barber declined, saying she could not give “a generic view in this place”.