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

End of the holidays – choppy times ahead

by Alan Dean on 4 September, 2016

At the start of long-ago school summer holidays, six weeks ahead always seemed like an endless break from learning. Then it was Monday tomorrow, as it is today for this generation of children; the start of a new school year. It probably feels like that for Theresa May as the realities of responsibility and international relations post the referendum start to pile in on the government.

Here in Uttlesford August has not been a complete shut-down. On the 23rd we had the most controversial meeting of the planning policy working group in the past 18 months of relatively calm deliberations on a new local plan; deliberations underpinned by the mantra of objective evidence and transparency.

Even choppier waters lie ahead as we begin this month to work out what areas of the district and, therefore, what development sites to eliminate before deciding what are the better locations to include from a very long list of proposed sites.

On August 23rd our “objective and transparent meditations” were disturbed from out of the blue by two substantial reports from The Chesterfords about historic and landscape merits of that area. These were not reports commissioned by UDC, so no one knew the brief given to those who produced them. They seemed like part of a local pre-emptive lobbying initiative to steer the district council and future development away from those two parishes.

The Chesterfords and an area East of Stebbing (on the boundary with Braintree District) are two areas being promoted for new settlements. The perception of a drift away from objective evidence and transparency over the former was compounded by a letter about the latter proposal from UDC to BDC which was too welcoming of a new settlement across the two districts’ common boundary, especially at a time when we (UDC) elected Members have not yet started to consider preferred locations.

My final concern is a drift back to the old habit of private meetings on the local plan. Members are being asked to attend private meetings this month to discuss where development should go. The first of these is on Wednesday this week. It has been proposed that the next meeting of the PPWG should be in private rather than sticking to the open and transparent approach adopted in January 2015. I have asked for a written explanation of this intention. I don’t want UDC to revive bad practices that culminated in a failed local plan branded by an independent planning inspector as “party political”.

   25 Comments

25 Responses

  1. keith says:

    Here we go again. The blatant attempt to block consideration of development in Chesterford (home of two Tory cabinet members and the ex-director of planning at UDC) and the favoured approach of private meetings. Rolfe has already abandoned the public consultation element (apparently the public have a regrettable tendency to reject his guidance) as he doggedly pursues his local plan process, disregarding any counsel that contradicts his narrow-minded, partisan and ignorant approach (which has already generated one failed plan….bodes well for the next one?)

    Lutfur Ramhan adopted a similarly high-handed approach to running Tower Hamlets. One can only hope that Rolfe will end up being called to account for his serial errors and I would repeat that I consider him guilty of misfeasance in public office. The way that the council acted with regard to the Kier and Elsenham inquiries come close to malfeasance. Either way, he should resign immediately.

  2. Geoff Powers says:

    The ‘Chesterfords survey’ sounds like, and probably is, a put-up job by Rolfe. He must clarify and acknowledge the source of this document and who (himself) promoted these reports. If he cannot/will not authenticate them, they must be set aside. (Also it follows that every other locality up for consideration must receive equivalent documentation.) There must be no cherry-picking (or un-cherry-picking) of sites.
    Regarding secret meetings/meetings, i.e. those not held in a public forum, the Chief Executive surely has the power to prevent these from taking place without the right of all councillors to attend. She must be mistress of her own house, even if she has to face off with Rolfe. Likewise, she can and should insist that at all such meetings must be attended by committee officers and fully minuted. In short, there should be no such thing as a ‘secret’ meeting, neither in Uttlesford nor in any other council. There must be some way to prevent such breaches of the council’s Standing Orders. The council is bound to follow its own proper procedures. In failing to do so the council leaves itself vulnerable to litigation, a point that in all probability, has never crossed Mr Rolfe’s mind.

    • Alan Dean says:

      It is on public record that when I raised my concern about the Chesterford reports, Cllr Rolfe said that he knew nothing about them until they appeared on the PPWG agenda.

  3. Neil says:

    Goodness gracious, yet more conspiracy theory nonsense from the ill informed.

    The documents submitted to the PPWG from The Chesterfords were part of the Neighbourhood Plan process and thus proper, timely and commissioned from external experts.

    I would have hoped for slightly more reverance for both the facts and due process from a councillor of the experience and seniority of Alan Dean.

    Neil

    • Alan Dean says:

      The UDC strategic planning working group has been accustomed to receiving evidential reports that the district council has commissioned against an agreed brief. The council has also received completed neighbourhood plans – Great Dunmow. It has not been the practice to receive background reports belonging to a NHP. Has The Chesterfords group conducted a housing needs survey and completed other pieces of work that UDC will be asked to evaluate?

      I’d say my experience of Uttlesford’s planning record in recent years has trained me to scrutinise the unexpected. My aim is to eradicate costly tales of the unexpected.

    • Geoff Powers says:

      If the Chesterford document ‘documentation’ originates from such an impeccable source as you imply, your comment that it originates from the Chesterfords Neighbourhood Plan does not say much for Howard Rolfe’s background knowledge as a long-time resident of Great Chesterford and (former?) member of its parish council. I find it very peculiar indeed that when the document was presented to UDC’s Planning Committee Rolfe was apparently unable to vouch for its credibility and authenticity. Moreover, you do not appear to understand how neighbourhood plans are processed by a planning authority. (Have a look at Great Dunmow’s Neighbourhood Plan.) Sounds to me like this was an attempt to sneak something that ‘might become relevant’ into the planning committee’s business under the radar. Central government tells us we must apply the precepts of open government in planning and all other local authority functions. We’re still waiting. What Howard Rolfe appears to practise is neither open, nor is it government, and as I’ve said a number of times recently, he has long since lost any credibility he might once have had. The residents of Uttlesford want – and need – straight dealing from their elected councillors, so, since you appear to know him quite well, perhaps you should have a chat with Mr Rolfe.

  4. Neil says:

    I really think you need to check your facts here Alan. The two submissions by The Chesterfords were at the request of UDC as part of the Neighbourhood Plan process. The Chesterfords Neighbourhood Plan area has been agreed by UDC and is required to keep UDC informed as to the evolving evidence base as a statutory consultee.

    I am really very concerned that members of PPWG do not understand proper process in respect of Neighbourhood Plans and instead think some sort of questionable lobbying is going on.

    You may wish to seek a briefing from Mr Glenday as a matter of urgency.

    I look forward to a note of clarification on this blog in due course.

    Neil

    • Alan Dean says:

      Neil, we were told by officers that according to national guidance the local plan process should take into account neighbourhood plans. Whilst NHPs have to be in conformity with district-wide local plans, there is no reason why a NHP should not influence a local plan. After all, UDC has recently written to parish councils and NHP groups for their opinions on sites for development. The latter are representations unless supported by verifiable evidence. The issue for me is that the Chesterford reports were presented as tested evidence, whereas I have seen counter opinion that challenges the validity of the content. That being the case, these reports would best be treated at this stage of the process as representations. I would not expect individual representations to appear as agenda items for a PPWG meeting.

      I have been in correspondence with Gordon Glenday and Dawn French about this and related matters for the past 1-2 weeks.

  5. Neil says:

    Alan, I have just listened to the recording of the meeting on 23 August.

    Your comments at the meeting are thoughtful and understandable in the circumstances. Cllr Parry appears to have missed the point somewhat however.

    The problem appears to be that the Planning Dept are telling members of the PPWG one thing and Neighbourhood Plan Groups another.

    I will be taking up Mr Fox’s observations at the meeting with UDC as well as questions of proper process, not least the admissability of the Bidwells letter.

    Neil

  6. keith says:

    Given a choice between trusting the judgement of Alan Dean or Rolfe, I would choose Alan any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

    Rolfe is a buffoon with overdeveloped delusions of adequacy and his ‘leadership’ is a disgrace. He has already fouled up one local plan and evidently learned nothing from the experience, naturally none of his loyal colleagues will put him straight (largely because none of them understand planning either).

    I stand by my prediction that his next effort will be similarly rejected by an inspector and the government will impose their own plan.

  7. keith says:

    Rolfe must be pulling the strings of ‘Neil’ who has ‘useful idiot’ writ large across every post he issues. Idiot, anyway. Why do these Tory muppets think they can ride rough-shod over due process and replace rational debate with empty party political spin?

    To infer, as Neil does, that a vague Chesterford informative has any serious influence on preparation of the draft local plan for Uttlesford defies parody.

    Perhaps someone could sit Neil down and explain to him that neighbourhood plans are entirely subservient to district plans and must conform to them, not the other way round. More to the point, take his superior, patronising attitude and shove it.

    As to Rolfe claiming to have NO knowledge of a planning document emanating from the village where he lives, I would see this as yet another reason to demonstrate why he lacks the competence to chair the local plan working group.

  8. Neil says:

    The bit of Keith’s incoherent rant that I take particular exception to is the description of me as a “Tory”. I could put up with “Whig”, although Gladstonian Liberal would be far more accurate…but Tory…never!

    As to the superior attitude, well I leave it to other readers of this blog to form their own opinion of the respective intellectual merits of the protagonists.

    Neil

  9. keith says:

    If you actually read my post properly instead of knee-jerking, you’d notice that I didn’t identify you specifically as a Tory.

    As to incoherence, ask your chum Rolfe to explain how a local plan in which he expressed pride (a matter of public record) was comprehensively rubbished by the inspector and thrown out at considerable cost in time and money.

    Having been directly involved in the last local plan process I consider my understanding of the process somewhat superior to yours. I predicted months previously that the draft plan would fail at the inspection. As to the current process, I would decline to take part in anything chaired by Rolfe and advise any opposition members to reconsider their involvement to avoid guilt by association when the next draft plan is rejected as it surely will be.

  10. keith says:

    It is depressing, and demeaning, to witness the squalid ineptitude with which UDC are addressing the matter of the district local plan.

    Similarly, the blatant political interference in the planning committee.

    Uttlesford used to be a pleasant place to live with a moderately competent district council. It is becoming a less pleasant place to live and the district council is responsible for the decline, particularly with regard to planning.

    The tenure of Ketteridge was bad enough, but his replacement has proven worse. Arrogant, ignorant, partisan and immune to criticism, why is this person chairing the local plan working group without any experience or understanding of planning (other than involvement in a previous abortive process) ?

    I was intrigued when a professional was brought in to assist in the draft local plan and jumped ship within weeks. That suggests that the current bunch of incompetents working on the plan were too difficult to work with, or perhaps the professional felt his career CV would be damaged by association.

    The fact remains that the last draft plan wasn’t so much thrown out as fired from a cannon (as I predicted) and nothing has changed. Rolfe remains determinedly in charge despite lacking any perceptible talent or understanding and the outcome is easy to predict, just as it was previously.

  11. keith says:

    So Susan Barker states that the draft local plan is not politically influenced.

    This, from the woman who is on record as stating that the Elsenham decision for hundreds of houses was indeed political and she was glad to have made it.

    Fortunately, the inspector rejected that proposal when he threw out the draft plan in 2014 and the Secretary of State has dismissed the appeal.

    Barker is a disgrace and should be barred from ANY public office.

  12. keith says:

    Cradle of democracy? Hah. After a squalid and signally dishonest campaign (for which BOTH groups share responsibility) a significant majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU.

    The response of the Remain camp is to smear those of us who voted to leave as xenophobes and idiots.

    I spoke up for the leave option and stated clearly that I felt it was the best thing for ALL of us. Given that the immediate benefits have been shedding the two spivs (Cameron and Osborne) I’d say that I was backing the right horse (and not for the first time)

    I would take this opportunity to invite those elected individuals who campaigned to Remain to consider their position now that the electorate have emphatically rejected their arguments. Naturally, nothing of the kind will happen, integrity and principle are entirely absent at UDC.

    • Alan Dean says:

      48% of the population on 23 June are unlikely to shed their principles. In fact, that number has swelled beyond 52% according to a recent poll as people realise what they were cajoled into voting for. It’s now down to the Remainers to explain to those who voted Leave that they were conned by those who have little interest in their wellbeing, but aim to line their pockets further at the expense of the already marginalised members of society.

  13. keith says:

    Get the facts right Alan, it was 48% of those who voted, on a turnout of 72% that would equate to roughly 35% of the electorate, which in any case does not include those under 18.

    As to your blithe assertion that the 48% has magically risen to 52%, in the first place you provide no evidence to substantiate this absurd claim, while in the second place, the referendum has been held and the results recorded. I appreciate the Remain babies are throwing their toys out of the pram and stamping their little feet but who cares?

    As to dishonest claims, I readily concede that BOTH sides were economical with the truth, I don’t see you admitting that the oily spiv and his oleaginous chums were serial liars and events since the vote bear out the fallacious nature of many of their claims. And now we have
    the chief spin doctor rushing out his moronic analysis of why it all went wrong for them.

    You made your argument for Remain, as I did for Leave. The result evidently grieves you. Tough. Why it never occurred to me to demand a re-election last May when I lost my council seat should obviously grieve me but I guess I sort of understand democracy. People don’t always vote the way you want or expect but when the votes are counted, the ones with the most of them win.

  14. Johnny says:

    What we see here is Alan Dean’s blog comments being used to abuse, humiliate, intimidate and threaten others. He enables behaviour that is neither liberal nor democratic and, as such, is complicit. Shame on you, Mr Dean.

    • Alan Dean says:

      First public figures have to be accountable and take criticism. Secondly, several comments have not been published or have been edited to remove excessive criticism (a matter of judgment where to draw the line. Thirdly, within reasonable limits it is not liberal to censor other people’s opinions, even if they make uncomfortable reading. Of course, there may be a limit when continued criticism in a single topic becomes counter productive, at which point a line will be drawn.

      I do not think the debate over Uttlesford’s local plan and the European referendum will end for some time yet.

      • Johnny says:

        No, you allow on here intimidating name-calling and insults (just see above), not only aimed at councillors but also anyone who dares to challenge you and your colleagues. Your blog generates the kind of unpleasant hostile atmosphere – irrelevant to civilised debate – that is part of an ugly political mood nationwide. You should strive to enhance debate, not put it in the gutter. We’ve seen one MP murdered and, close to us, immigrant communities targeted for attack because of the kind of bitter mood that creeps into your blog. It’s really shameful that a council political leader is passing off insults as democratic debate.

        • Alan Dean says:

          Johnny, It would be helpful to know who you and your “company” are. That would make the dialogue more transparent.

          You will have noticed that the attacks are against me – as, indeed, is yours – as well as against others, so this is not a one-sided, partisan set of challenges. There is a case for limiting the number of attacks and challenges that are merely repetitive and add nothing to what has been said before and to sensible debate. I will pay more regard to that in future.

          I share your concern about the widespread rise in incidents of anger and worse against sections of society and individuals. The question is whether suppressing disagreeable opinion is the right way to deal with the written and spoken word, rather than having reasoned argument against it. We seem to have a society in which one half does not understand the other half nor wishes to listen to their concerns and fears. One way of dealing with comments of which one disapproves is to respond with reasoned argument rather than counter-attack.

          There were protests in support of the former BNP leader being banned from appearing on the BBC Question Time panel. He appeared. His views were ridiculed and his reputation was damaged.

          You will know the quotation attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

  15. keith says:

    Incidentally, Johnny, take your superior attitude and (…..).

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>