Councillors’ voting and non-voting record. With thanks to We Are Residents campaign.

Uttlesford council is coming under mounting pressure to come clean over what the public sees as favoured treatment of Hellsenham and its promoters, the Fairfield Partnership.  In this post I will continue to report on Tuesday’s discredited council meeting that agreed the pre-submission Local Plan by one vote only (23 votes) above one-half of the council membership of 44. The voting record of all councillors is shown in the table to the right.

Two Conservatives chose not to take part in the debate and the vote. Councillor John Freeman from Thaxted left the meeting and did not vote. Cllr Joe Rich from Stansted (North) left the meeting whilst members of the public were speaking and did not return until after the vote was taken. There is strong evidence from various sources that Tories were threatened with deselection from being Conservative candidates for next year’s local elections if they voted against. Despite party bullying, Tory councillors John Davey, Derek Jones, Tina Knight, Keith Mackman, Doug Perry and David Watson voted according to their consciences and on their principles.

This is a summary of what they said:

Tina Knight – she attacked some councillors as being outrageous for showing disrespect towards other councillors and the public; She had to hit back at Cllr Ranger who barracked her with cries of “nonsense”, saying she had listened to his fairy story, “so don’t say ‘nonsense’, keep quiet!” She spoke about risks to the East Anglian bread basket from loss of agricultural land, dissatisfaction with a single settlement at Elsenham rather than near the Cambridgeshire border; she would not support the plan. This was met with public applause, which Chairman Hicks described as being “drowned out by mindless applause”! Cllr Knight’s speech is available at 1hr 24min 45sec.

Keith Mackman – in a robust attack on the soundness of the plan, he said that the whole process should be above party politics; public consultation has been cosmetic; the plan is inadequate on employment and infrastructure; more time is needed to do a proper job so don’t push through an inadequate plan; (the speech was missing from the council’s original audio recording, but is mostly now available at 1hr 22min 26sec + See comments below);

Doug Perry – the plan process has lacked openness, fairness and transparency so it falls down;

David Watson – members are asked to discuss whether it is sound and sustainable, but these matters have never been discussed in full council; consultation responses are always ignored; Saffron Walden traffic proposals are useless; the plan is morally and legally hopelessly wrong; local communities have not been allowed to shape where development goes; minister Nick Bowles says this and a Conservative council should not ignore that. Cllr Watson’s speech can be heard on the recording at 1hr 33min 30sec.

Before the debate there were seven speeches from members of the public:

Joanne Stone from Saffron Walden – the plan should not be approved because the hazards caused by air pollution have been disregarded. UDC has been negligent in taking inadequate action.

Dan Starr from WeAreResidents – The plan is fatally flawed and public trust in the council is at an all-time low; plan not prepared from a bottom-up approach so prepared backwards based on landowner’s proposals (so housing is in the wrong places); 523 homes a year is too high; the voice of elected members has not been represented; risking the high cost of a public inquiry for a dud plan is irresponsible; rebuild trust through transparency!

(This representation drew applause from the public. Chairman Hicks admonished the public, saying applause will lengthen the meeting. This provoked murmurs of derision and a threat from Eric Hicks to suspend the meeting and to throw people out. He failed to shown any empathy towards public feeling about this controversial plan.)

Ken MacDonald from Stansted – the housing number forecasts are too high and it should be re-evaluated in comparison with other councils’ methodology; East Herts, South Cambs and Maldon have not adopted the same, highest projections from Edge Analytics’ data; refer the target back to officers.

Barbara Hughes from Saffron Walden – there is no strategic overview for Saffron Walden on matters such as schools and highways; UDC is abdicating its responsibilities by not doing the job thoroughly; town will be short-changed for affordable housing; plan risks being found unsound and uncontrolled development.

(Cllr Joe Rich left the meeting at this point.)

Simon Lee for Save Our Villages (around Elsenham) – the U-turn on Hellsenham is unsound, based on dumping extra homes derived from unsound housing targets; UDC has been questioned under Freedom of Information about why it is “wedded to Fairfield” but has not responded. Council officers have attempted to manipulate the way SOV responds to the consultation.

Bruce Hyatt from Saffron Walden – a bypass is needed for Saffron Walden; Downing Street doesn’t understand the impact of housing need; national money is needed for infrastructure.

Ray Woodcock from Stansted – Stansted’s population has increased by 22.7% compared with only 7% elsewhere; B1383 and B1051 and the notorious Grove Hill highways are inadequate; you guys don’t listen to what you are being told; you need to open your eyes; this not a sustainable plan.

Then the debate (or, as Ken MacDonald wrote in local papers, prepared statements were read) commenced.

Cllr Susan Barker, the environment cabinet member, kicked off by tabling the Local Plan for agreement and asserted that it was sound. Comment: she gave no evidence that it is sound, but merely listed what stages had been gone through – mainly in private – to get to this stage. She said that changes have been made in response to public opinion. She only cited a reduction of housing numbers in Newport, (comment – yet that was no more than an act of pork-barrel politics in advance of a council by-election in the hope of gaining a Tory seat. They failed.)

One of the earliest contributions came from Elsenham and Henham member David Morson, but his speech was rudely interrupted by Chairman Hicks, which in turn provoked public uproar. Cllr Morson began by saying he wanted to address district-wide concerns about the soundness of the plan. He believed that the public is bewildered and puzzled over how the 2,100 home Hellsenham scheme could have been selected back into the plan after a smaller application for 800 homes had been twice rejected by the planing committee. At this point he was interrupted by the chairman and told he could only comment on the whole plan and not refer to specific sites. Cllr Morson stood his ground and insisted he couldn’t addressed the flaws in the plan without reference to Hellsenham……….to public applause.

Then Eric Hicks destroyed any claim to be an impartial chairman. He told the public audience “would you like this meeting suspended. We will continue the meeting without the public present if you wish”! Comment: This drove home the long-held perception of the Tories’ disdain for public involvement in the Local Plan process and vindicated the Liberal Democrats’ decision to stay away from private working group meetings. It did nothing to help rebuild trust in this council and its Conservative, cabinet-dominated administration.

David Morson stood his ground until John Mitchell, chief executive, intervened and told Eric Hicks he should let Cllr Morson continue. The chairman complied; and David Morson went on to say that the way in which Hellsenham had been reinserted in the plan made it a flawed plan; that it hadn’t been based on sound planning decisions but had been rejected twice by the planning committee on sound planning grounds. The decision making process had been flawed and devious at the scrutiny committee. The cabinet decisions are based on recommendations from a working group dominated by cabinet members. The whole process was based on the exclusion of anyone with alternative opinions. This was met with more applause……and no further hectoring Chairman Hicks.

The cabinet received supportive words from councillors Rose, Ranger and Howell, all of whom made the point that more housing is needed, including affordable housing. Jeremy Rose asked “what about the workers”? Vic Ranger told a sad story about a man who fell on hard time and who needed a home; before revealing “that man was me”. He ruined his case by starting with a threat against the public that no meeting should be held in public if tonight’s expressions of public feeling are anything to go by. This section of the council’s audio recording feed at 1 hr 00 min 32 sec is partly missing. + See comment below about a technical failure?

Cllr Lizzy Parr, Lib Dem group leader, said new homes are needed; called the latest consultation a sham; she urged members to put aside party politics when they voted; the cabinet has not backed up its assertions that the plan is sound with evidence; the Lib Dems had withdrawn from the working group because they don’t want to be part of a process which engages in secretive behaviours.

Cllr Jan Menell played party politics by attacking the Liberal Democrats for resigning from the private and secretive working group (and also missing from the audio recording + See comment below); she would like to deny the opposition the right to make comments at the council meeting; an authoritarian approach already well rehearsed by fellow Conservative meeting chairman Eric Hicks.

The other Lib Dem councillors spoke:

Iris Evans – no evidence has been presented to show the plan is sound; like Barclays Bank closure in Stansted, this is done deal but members need to stand up for the district’s residents.

Martin Foley – party politics should have been avoided and he would leave any party which applied political pressure to get the result it wanted.

Alan Dean – my contribution was posted on Wednesday and can be heard on the audio recording at 1hr 40min 40sec.

The “debate ended” with the Conservative leadership:

Jim Ketteridge – he shot himself in the foot by once again attempting to hide behind a bungled attack on the Liberal Democrats. He reported that a former Lib Dem group leader (Peter Wilcock) had “stabbed UDC in the back” at a meeting with a government minister by saying Uttlesford “was not building enough affordable housing”. Earlier in the evening we had heard at least three Conservative councillors plead for more affordable housing. Comment: the conclusion may have to be drawn that not only is Cllr Ketteridge at war with the the Liberal Democrats and his own party rebels, but he may also be at war with his loyalists who want more homes. He may even be discontented with himself because he ended by saying that it would be wrong to close ones eyes to the needs of an increasing population.

Susan Barker summed up – We have never had a coherent opposing suggestion from anybody. We cannot put 6,000 houses up near Great Chesterford. No developer has offered any land (there). (Comment: that statement may soon be contested.) Cllr Barker’s wind-up speech can be heard on the recording at 1hr 53min 06sec.

+ Note: see comment below about audio technical failures. Update 22/04/14 The audio recording was replaced in the past few days by a more complete version which can be heard here.