The trustworthiness of the local MP, Sir Alan Haselhurst, is under the spotlight this morning as he comes off the fence over local planning appeals. He has been seen by campaigners to be supporting the appeal by Fairfield for 800 homes at “Hellsenham” (Elsenham and Henham) whilst apparently trying to persuade government ministers behind the scenes not to uphold an appeal at Little Easton by Land Securities for a similar sized development. Yet in public statements Sir Alan has always maintained a neutral, fence-sitting stance on planning applications to avoid pleasing some of his constituents but offending others by taking sides.

Correspondence took place between Sir Alan Haselhurst MP and Brandon Lewis MP, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning between September and November this year.

Save our Villages has issued a statement in which Sir Alan has written at length about his neutrality: “….if I named my favoured locations, I think that my constituents in those parts would be enraged to find me ‘trespassing’ on their interests…..If the District Council, with its department of officials, can be slated for lack of evidence in reaching their conclusions, you can imagine what would be said about me who does not have an army of researchers behind him”. Sir Alan may well claim that he has been making what was only a technical inquiry about the planning process. If so, he would not have referred to “Conservative blood on the carpet” and “the political risk attending this matter”. He needs to explain himself.

I wrote this morning to Cllr Howard Rolfe, the Conservative leader of the council, asking if any cabinet member or planning officer had corresponded with the MP over these appeals. Cllr Rolfe has phoned me to promise the correspondence will be made available. [*]

It’s crucial we get to the bottom of this. Today is the day that the Examination in Public of Uttlesford’s Local Plan commences in Saffron Walden. I expect this latest incident will feature in representations made about the soundness of the process. It could become what I alluded to in my last post; a “Hindenburg disaster”.

[*] UPDATE 11:45

Cllr Rolfe has sent me an email chain from himself and the planning deputy director to Sir Alan Haselhurst and which can be read here. I am grateful for such a speedy response. I will make no further comment at this moment beyond observing that there are dangers in being seen to interfere in due process, especially in controversial planning matters.

UPDATE 14:00

Sir Alan Haselhurst has issued a statement to the press denying any wrong doing. He claims to have been “wilfully misunderstood”. This is the Herts & Essex Observer’s account. Sir Alan says: “Why when independent inspection of Uttlesford’s Local Plan was set to begin had the Secretary of State called in one of its component parts together with another proposed development which was not in the plan? I simply could not understand why the Secretary of State should appear to be picking apart a plan.” I think the answer to that is very straight forward. Any planning application has always had to be judged on its merits and the same goes for a refusal that goes to appeal. He goes on “At no point have I expressed a view about the conclusion reached by the district council“. But the Local Plan has not yet been found sound; so its inclusion of development at Elsenham/Henham and its omission of development at Little Easton are only draft proposals. Both have to be considered on their relative merits by the Inspector and by the Secretary of State. Sir Alan should know this; he has been an MP longer than I have been a councillor.

The game is given away by Howard Rolfe’s appeal to Alan Haselhurst on September 9th: “any influence you may be able to have with Eric Pickles would be much appreciated”. He is not asking for information about the process, but is seeking to influence the decision making process. The “political risks” that Alan refers to in his letter must, it is reasonable to conclude be about the outcome. Whilst our MP places much score on the possibility of the Little Easton scheme growing beyond its proposed size, he ignores completely the reality that if 800 are allowed at Elsenham/Henham, that will grow to 2,100 and potentially way beyond that total.

I am unconvinced by explanations given so far. Also, I haven’t been provided with any replies from Sir Alan Haselhurst to the council’s emails, so I will ask to see those.