A Litany Of Lies About Taking Legal Advice

Chelmsford City Council maintain they have fully investigated at least eight reported planning breaches at the Hamptons Mosque (that we know of) since the building was bought in 2020 by the Chelmsford Muslim Society. Read the council’s recent position statement here.

Many local residents have concerns over the lack of transparency surrounding these investigations, and where legal advice is claimed to have been sought, residents have been denied the right to see it.

The original decision from the council

Their first decision came in September 2020, when they advised CMS that a Change of Use planning application would be required - at that time for plans to use the Hamptons Sports and Leisure Club for worship and the addition of Wudu (ritual ablution facilities).

This would prove to be a decision that the Council have been reluctant to uphold.

Since then, the council have investigated each incremental change to the buildings’ use, and each time deciding the additional religious uses were all permitted under the original planning permission, and did not represent a material change of use for which planning permission would be required.

The council’s policy for planning enforcement investigations is to conduct a site visit with 10 days and produce a report within 28 days.

With the Hamptons Mosque, the council have consistently failed to meet these policy timeframes, often blaming “complex and highly technical matters”, awaiting information from CMS, and having to obtain independent legal advice.

Even when served with legal notices for information by the council, CMS have only supplied vague and limited passive/aggressive responses, which the council have just accepted. Clear evidence to us of two tier enforcement practices by Planning Services

The Legal Advice

Previous Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for copies of the legal advice received have all been refused, withholding the information for reasons that include that disclosure would “increase local tensions within the local community”.

We’ve long been sceptical of the content of the legal advice received, or even whether it exists at all. A recent FOI request to the Council has revealed that they have sought legal advice on seven occasions, costing the public purse £7,550.00.

Whilst this may sound like a lot of money, in the context of legal costs it is likely to only represent an hour or two of consideration for each instance.

What does this information tell us?

The key is in the dates. Five of the seven occasions that external legal advice was sought falls outside of any known planning breach investigations, and are within the periods that the council were considering two applications submitted for certificates of lawfulness, so the legal advice for these would likely relate to these applications and not any enforcement investigations:

• 21/01429/CLEUD – Submitted 14/07/21, Refused 29/10/21

• 22/00936/CLOPUD – Submitted 18/5/22, Refused 29/09/22

It would appear that the council did not obtain independent legal advice for the following

investigations, despite claiming they had done so:

1. May 2021 when investigating use of Hamptons for daily prayers and throughout

   Ramadan

2. Feb 2022 when investigating the use of two rooms for prayers.

3. April 2022 when investigating the refurbishment of the building to create dedicated

   prayer rooms and ablution facilities.

4. March 2024 when investigating further increase in use for worship (as below)

It seems the council only sought independent legal advice on the following planning breach investigations:

• May 2023, when investigating the addition of a Madrassa (The Makarim

  Academy). The council took seven months to investigate this report, and more than six

  months had passed before they sought legal advice, on 4/5/23.

• June 2023, when investigating the holding of a funeral with the deceased present.

What is the Council hiding?

Assuming the information received under FOI to be accurate and complete, either the council have not disclosed the full extent and cost of the legal advice obtained, or, more likely, the legal advice does not exist at all.

It’s time for these unelected, anonymous employees in Planning Services, to face some public scrutiny !

The truth will out !

TVO