Cllr Alan Dean

Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North on Uttlesford District Council and former Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more

Read more on this

Read more on this

Unwilling to support behaviour that will inflict untold damage on this special district.

by Alan Dean on 20 August, 2014

Here is my account of last night’s extraordinary council meeting at Uttlesford. It complements my earlier post.

My speech in opposition to the council doing a U-turn is linked here.

So what went on behind closed doors? I’m not able to reveal the second legal opinion that we had been sent since the last extraordinary meeting on August 5th. Needless to say, no appeal before a planning inspector is a foregone conclusion, just as no trial before a judge and jury will have a certain outcome. It all depends on the strength of the evidence that is presented and in the skills of the people who put the two sides to the argument.

Until this summer, Uttlesford has never been known to back out of a planning appeal. So why now? Because the Tories have spend seven years putting together a local plan for the next 15 years. They’ve made some stupid decisions on where to allocate land. Because they have taken so long, developers have put in planning applications jumping the gun – not waiting for the plan to be verified and adopted. The plan remains in draft and has yet to be tested before a planning inspector on whether it is sound.

So Kier Homes jumped the gun in April. Uttlesford’s planning committee threw out their scheme; they gave four reasons for rejecting the application. That’s nothing new. Refusals and appeals happen all the time. You win some; you lose some.

Why break with precedent and not do what is normal – defend the appeal? Well, they say the council might lose. But it might lose any appeal. It might also win and have the appeal dismissed. Why worry that costs might be awarded against the council in this case and the Fairfield case at Elsenham – IF the council loses – but not in the dozens of other appeals that have been defended as a matter of routine over the years?

It can be summed up in one quotation from what I said last night:

Sadly, the truth is that this is not about the risk of having the appeal upheld or dismissed.

It is about some influential elements of this council doing all they can within their power to ensure the council loses (and the developer wins).

Those people are determined to do whatever they can to put the draft, untested local plan before

the adopted local plan, which remains the council’s handbook to planning the best for this district,

and before the credibility and integrity of the planning committee. 

Cllr David Morson (Lib Dem), said something similar, as did Cllr Mark Lemon (Ind) and Saffron Walden Conservative councillor Doug Perry:

This is about integrity.

The main principle in planning is (each application is decided) on its merits.

Until the emerging local plan has been found sound, little weight can be attributed to it.

It is inappropriate for the chief executive officer to attack the credibility of the (planning) committee and for its chair to remain silent.

This questions the integrity of the committee and its worth.

Council leader, Cllr Howard Rolfe (Con), urged members to keep focused on the motion from Cllr Susan Barker (Con) to pull out of defending the appeal. He said he was fed up with WeAreResidents “challenging the integrity of (council) officers”. He didn’t offer any concern for officer attacks on planning committee members.

Cllr Christina Cant (Lib Dem), a planning committee member was alarmed that the committee had been undermined. If the decision was flawed or the circumstances had changed, the decision should have been brought back to the planning committee for reconsideration. [This was tried (unsuccessfully) with the 800-home Fairfield application at Elsenham, so why wasn’t that done in this case?]

Cllr Barker ended the debate by saying that the council’s reputation would be damaged if Uttlesford District Council (UDC) were to defend the appeal. “We are custodians of the public purse”, she said. Indeed we are. Even more money could be saved by sacking the planning department, winding up the planning committee and then by allowing a total planning free-for-all.

That’s neither sensible nor permissible, but one does wonder which part of the planning process UDC under the present Tories will play fast and loose with next!   

I told them they were being dishonest in pretending it was solely a matter of saving on legal costs. I believe they were also being hypocritical in pretending they want to protect WeAreResidents and Saffron Walden Town Council who will both, I understand, be doing Uttlesford’s job for it by defending the appeal.

The motion to pull out of the appeal and leave it to local people to defend was approved by 21 votes to 7. The few votes against included Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Independents. Most notably, fewer than half the council (of 44 members) backed the decision and that some Conservatives deliberately stayed away.

 

   5 Comments

5 Responses

  1. Geoff Powers says:

    Nothing new under the sun – people without honour or scruples everywhere – and their fellow travellers, who have no spine!

  2. Geoff Powers says:

    It’s now clear that the critical – and quasi-judicial process of planning at UDC is essentially compromised, chaired as it is by Cllr Cheetham, who, as a member of the council’s cabinet, has refused to stand up for her committee’s decision, quite properly arrived at, to refuse the Kier application. By this action the integrity of the Planning Committee has been ‘trashed’ so that no applicant can henceforth rely on his/her application being given a fair hearing, as the law demands, independent of the council’s ‘political’ priorities. Members of the Planning Committee would be within their rights to demand that Cllr Cheetham resign as Chai or to refuse to work with her; they won’t, of course, as most of them are Tories, but at least committee members should make a fuss. What is the point of serving on that committee if its decisions are overturned by Full Council for spurious political reasons. It’s a bit like Ireland’s brush with the EU – vote again, and make sure you come up with the right answer this time!

  3. Keith says:

    My concern for the way a handful of individuals with limited, if any, strategic vision have forced their flawed and unworkable draft plan to the current stage can only be hinted at. Apparently it is OK for certain individuals to undermine the credibility of the planning committee but I cannot name names, no no no. Cabinet members can flout convention, lie and mislead, but mere members get castigated for raising concerns. Some even get suspended from the Tory group, though that is of no importance.

    I imagine that most readers will be familiar with the story of the king’s new clothes. whether the Hans Christian Anderson version or the Danny Kaye song.

    The cabinet and the draft plan have a similar relationship. Something ludicrous and demeaning is taking place and nobody is prepared to say the obvious at the risk of offending the cabinet. Isn’t it ooooh, isn’t it aaaah, isn’t it absolutely waaah (apologies to D Kaye)

    I remain puzzled as to what the council will do in the event that the inspector finds the plan unacceptable during the examination later this year? In the fairy story it closes with humiliation for the king and the fools who failed to tell truth to power. In reality, locally, the damage to the district will be of far more significance than the bruised egos of a handful of self-important individuals who are unlikely to be around to witness the consequences after next May.

    It is sad to see the depths to which the reputation of the council is being dragged. I have been accused of undermining the council. I would dispute that, my opposition to the draft plan has been consistent, considered and principled. Some previous comment by me on this blog has admittedly been a little over the top and I regret that, but given the fact that I was dealing with the repercussions of a severe head injury perhaps the occasional bout of ill-temper might be understood and excused.

    • Alan Dean says:

      As I left the council meeting on Tuesday, one member of the Conservative group said to me “I hope, if you or Keith are going to write anything on your blog about honesty, you will be able to substantiate it. I simply replied “Yes”!

      The trouble is that too many of the Tories – and it is not all of them – are in denial or ignorance of what they are doing. They have created a draft and untested local plan by back-door methods in which there is little public confidence because there is distrust about its true origins.

      The council’s own planning committee has rejected details of it on three occasions this year. Now the elite cabinet has forced a minority of the whole council into driving through a spectacular U-turn on a second planning appeal that the council should be defending.

      Their lack of honesty stems from the pretence that they want to keep their reasons for reneging on their responsibilities at the forthcoming appeal secret in order to protect those who will fight these appeals: Save Our Villages at Fairfield’s “Hellsenham” plot and WeAreResidents and Saffron Walden Town Council at Kier’s Saffron Walden plot. The Tory elite actually wants these community organisations to fail; the Tory elite want the appeals upheld; that is, they want the developers to win.

      So the Conservative who challenged me over my blog should contemplate not only the meaning of “dishonesty” but also the meaning of the word “hypocrisy”. The only consolation for the residents of Uttlesford is that the scales have long fallen from the eyes of some Conservatives and seem to be starting to fall from from the eyes of more Tory members as they peer into the cul-de-sac where their leadership team is taking them. Sadly, the Tory leadership is likely to remain in its world of self-deception.

  4. Keith says:

    Comically, one of my colleagues has on more than one occasion advised me that I should join the Lib Dems, as he would if he were me. I say comically, because the Lib Dems would refuse his offer on both our accounts, me because I am recognised as a Conservative and he, because nobody likes a turncoat. Obviously he has little understanding of what Conservatism involves, no perception of the history of the party or some of the truly great individuals that found a home within the Conservative Party. The likes of Churchill and Thatcher come to mind, nobody could ever accuse them of toeing a party line, rather they set one.

    I don’t see myself in quite such an heroic mould but I decline the easy path of agreeing a group decision merely because it might be a group decision. Such decisions frequently involve less than a majority of the full council and while convenient for some to fall in with the line, I clearly recollect standing as a representative of the residents of Uttlesford, not as a blunt instrument for the cabinet (which was not even a consideration at the 2011 elections, just snuck in by the new administration)

    Some politicians have a genial contempt for those that elect them. The electorate have a short memory, they are easily bought, trinkets and baubles are sufficient to quell the discontent, negative campaigning takes out the opposition etc etc

    I have regard for residents, not simply because they elected me (for which I am grateful) to a temporary position (I never forget that what was given can be taken away) but because I recognise the central role of a councillor is to represent the interests of residents to the best of our ability. A draft plan that attracts so much opposition from so many residents cannot be legitimately supported by other than party hacks.

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>