Bribery Act 2010, Charity Donation & Planning Application

[Thurbs]

I am a NIMBY who is trying to stop a housing development from happening (flame away!).

Anyway, it has come to light that...

Entity A - is a private property development company.
Entity B - is a charitable organisation whom is concerned with wildlife protection and habitation.
Entity C - is a fellow NIMBY.

Here is the scenario:

• Entity A offered Entity B a donation to financially support a local nature reserve in exchange to support the aforementioned planning application.
• Entity B accepted this offer.
• Entity B has confirmed they received and accepted an offer from Entity A to support the planning application in return for a financial contribution to Entity C via a phone call.

It is not known if Entity B would have supported the application prior to Entity A's financial incentive. I do not believe this to be relevant under the act.

Under the Bribery Act 2010, I believe both Entity A and Entity B have fallen foul of the law. Namely:

• Entity A is guilt of part 1.1 (a) and (b)i (offers, promises or gives a financial or another advantage to another person and intends the advantage to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity).
• Entity B is guilty of part 2.2 (agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage intending that, in consequence, a relevant function or activity should be performed improperly)

I believe it applies under section 3 namely:

• 3.5 Condition C - is that a person performing the function or activity is in a position of trust by virtue of performing it.

I also believe that improper performance applies under section 4 namely:

• 4.1 (a) and (b) - is performed improperly if it is performed in breach of a relevant expectation, and is to be treated as being performed improperly if there is a failure to perform the function or activity and that failure is itself a breach of a relevant expectation.

I am not looking to initiate a public or private prosecution for either entity. My main questions are:

• is my logic correct regarding the alleged act of Bribery?
• if an act of Bribery has occurred or there are reasonable grounds that an act of Bribery may have occurred as part of Entity A's application for planning permission, are there reasonable grounds for appealing the authorities decision approve the development?

May thanks in advance for any advice.

[darreni]

Or it may simply be a deal that both parties are happy with.
There is a fine line & possibly a world of grey between a mutually acceptable deal & corruption.

Ask yourself when you last saw a conviction for bribery or corruption.

Edited by darreni on Wednesday 27th February 22:13

[markjmd]

If entity B is a charitable organization, and entity C is just an ordinary member of the public, then neither are in a position to be "performing a function improperly", with respect to the approving or not of a planning application, ergo a charge of offering them or of they accepting a bribe would seem to have no basis.

[Mandat]

Thurbs said:

I am a NIMBY who is trying to stop a housing development from happening (flame away!).

Anyway, it has come to light that...

Entity A - is a private property development company.
Entity B - is a charitable organisation whom is concerned with wildlife protection and habitation.
Entity C - is a fellow NIMBY.

Here is the scenario:

• Entity A offered Entity B a donation to financially support a local nature reserve in exchange to support the aforementioned planning application.
• Entity B accepted this offer.
• Entity B has confirmed they received and accepted an offer from Entity A to support the planning application in return for a financial contribution to Entity C via a phone call.

It is not known if Entity B would have supported the application prior to Entity A's financial incentive. I do not believe this to be relevant under the act.

Under the Bribery Act 2010, I believe both Entity A and Entity B have fallen foul of the law. Namely:

• Entity A is guilt of part 1.1 (a) and (b)i (offers, promises or gives a financial or another advantage to another person and intends the advantage to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity).
• Entity B is guilty of part 2.2 (agrees to receive or accepts a financial or other advantage intending that, in consequence, a relevant function or activity should be performed improperly)

I believe it applies under section 3 namely:

• 3.5 Condition C - is that a person performing the function or activity is in a position of trust by virtue of performing it.

I also believe that improper performance applies under section 4 namely:

• 4.1 (a) and (b) - is performed improperly if it is performed in breach of a relevant expectation, and is to be treated as being performed improperly if there is a failure to perform the function or activity and that failure is itself a breach of a relevant expectation.

I am not looking to initiate a public or private prosecution for either entity. My main questions are:

• is my logic correct regarding the alleged act of Bribery?
• if an act of Bribery has occurred or there are reasonable grounds that an act of Bribery may have occurred as part of Entity A's application for planning permission, are there reasonable grounds for appealing the authorities decision approve the development?

May thanks in advance for any advice.

Has Entity B "performed improperly" a relevant function or activity as a result of the payment?

That seems to be the requirement for an offence to be committed.

[Oceanrower]

I'm sure you could have explained that in a more complicated way.

I'm not sure how...

[anonymous-user]

How significant to the overall planning decision process could entity B ever be?

Is it the sole arbiter on any element of the process?

If not, then the chance of The Act being breached is vanishingly slim imo

[Pica-Pica]

A section 106 agreement?

[55palfers]

Probably no different to a big developer offering to build a nice indoor swimming pool / leisure centre for the local kids

[Pica-Pica]

A section 106 agreement?

[Flumpo]

no, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

[Red Devil]

Indeed. Section 106 relates to an agreement between the local authority and a developer.
One which can be attached to planning permission to make a development proposal acceptable in planning terms, that would not otherwise be acceptable.
https://www.local.gov.uk/pas/pas-topics/infrastruc...

If the OP thinks everything is not quite kosher then maybe he should contact the Charities Commission?

[essayer]

Are B one of the statutory consultees or are they just some random organisation with a local interest?

[paintman]

Thurbs said:

I am not looking to initiate a public or private prosecution for either entity.

Why not?
You appear to believe criminality may have occurred & claim you are also trying to stop a development.
Suggest you speak either to the Charities commission as already suggested or take your concerns to the police.

[Alucidnation]

I agree with what the OP says he is.

[Drumroll]

"Entity A offered Entity B a donation to financially support a local nature reserve in exchange to support the aforementioned planning application."

Does the OP know this to be a fact? If so what proof does he have?

[Oakey]

Is OP jealous that Entity C has also been offered a financial contribution whilst he has not?

[carinaman]

The OP can bring a private prosecution by laying information at a Magistrates Court. They can do that themselves without using a Lawyer.

The OP may want to look into the grounds for bringing a Judicial Review into the planning decision if they believe there has been impropriety or bias. It may be beneficial to do that before laying an information at a Magistrates Court.

The CPS and the police do not have a monopoly on bringing prosecutions.

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 28th February 13:52

[Sticks.]

Seek guidance from the Charity Commission in the first instance, I'd have thought.

[carinaman]

A Judicial Review into planning decisions need to be submitted within 6 weeks, if there has been any impropriety.

[EU_Foreigner]

carinaman said:

A Judicial Review into planning decisions need to be submitted within 6 weeks, if there has been any impropriety.

At a very high cost unfortunately