Last night I received an email from Sir Alan Haselhurst MP. It read like an email sent from his office to many people who had raised concerns about the letters between him and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning.  I reproduce Sir Alan’s email and my reply below. A fuller account of this issue was posted yesterday.

………………………………………………

From: HASELHURST, Alan [mailto:alan.haselhurst.mp@parliament.uk]
Sent: 18 November 2014 16:36
To: Cllr Dean
Subject: “Conservative Blood on the Carpet”

Dear Cllr. Dean,

I have seen your email to Howard Rolfe and recognise your eagerness to smell a rat.

I attach a copy of the Press Notice I have issued today. Far from interfering with a planning issue I was actually concerned about what appeared to be interference by the Secretary of State. By uplifting two major proposals, one in the Local Plan and one not, I was anxious that he might be creating the impression of prejudicing matters which are supposedly to be scrutinised by the independent inspector examining the Plan.

At no stage have I sought to show preference for one development as against another. I have acted only to protect the interests of the District as a whole.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Haselhurst

“The letter I sent to the Planning Minister has been totally and in some cases wilfully misunderstood.

“My query was quite straightforward. 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? The District Council in accordance with Government policy had finalised a draft Plan, sadly not without controversy and not without giving rise to anger amongst many of the Government’s own natural supporters. The process having got that far I simply could not understand (and the Minister’s reply leaves me not much wiser) why the Secretary of State should appear to be picking apart a Plan, whatever its merits or demerits, about to be tested by an inspector on his behalf. It seemed to me that an inquiry in which both the District Council and its critics were placing their faith was at risk of being upset.

“At no point have I expressed a view about the conclusion reached by the District Council, because I am conscious of my responsibility not to favour one part of my constituency over another. There is nothing in my letter which can fairly be interpreted as expressing preference for one scheme over another. My concern was, and is, to do with the integrity of the inspection process in light of the calling-in decision of the Secretary of State.

“I believe that what I have raised is a legitimate question on behalf of all my constituents in Uttlesford.”

 ……………………………………………………

From: Cllr Dean
Sent: 18 November 2014 18:43
To: ‘HASELHURST, Alan’
Subject: RE: “Conservative Blood on the Carpet”
Importance: High

Dear Alan

I am sorry, but your protestations about your involvement in these planning appeals do not convince me and nor have they convinced anyone else with whom I have been in contact today, including members of the press.

You have been a member of parliament for longer than I have been a councillor so you must know that secretaries of state choose to call in planning applications for reasons best known to themselves and their officials regardless of whether the proposed site for development is within an adopted plan, a draft plan or neither of these. The timing of an appeal is largely of an appellant’s choosing and the process has not been stalled in recent years owing to the procrastination of the district council over its local plan completion.

Your aim seems to be to preserve the integrity of the draft local plan which has only today begun its examination in public and may be deemed unsound in due course. So there is no local plan to “unpick”, as you imply Eric Pickles may be about to act, were he to dismiss the Fairfield appeal. You put great score on the prospect of the Little Easton application being the forerunner of something much larger, but make no reference to this also being a possibility at “Hellsenham”. Therefore, it is clear to any impartial observer that your aim is to influence the outcome of the appeals in favour of the Fairfield appeal being upheld and the Land Securites appeal being dismissed.

It is plain from your letter to Mr Lewis that your main concern is the political implications that may flow from these appeals; hence your two references in your letter to politics, one of which was in graphic language.

The public can be grateful that Mr Lewis has ensured transparency by publishing the correspondence via the planning inspectorate in an attempt to shine a light on any possible impropriety. You will be aware that Howard Rolfe wrote to you saying “any influence you may be able to have with Eric Pickles would be much appreciated”. His aim was “influence” and not clarification of the process being followed. May I suggest that your subsequent action was a misjudgement?

Howard’s email trail was unidirectional from UDC to you. Did you reply? If so, please may I see your response(s)?

I have been publishing an account of these events on my blog since this morning. I will update it with this exchange of emails at an early opportunity.

Kind Regards, Alan

Cllr Alan Dean

Member of Uttlesford District Council for Stansted South

Leader of the Liberal Democrat Opposition

Tel: 01279 813 579