EARLY ONE MORNING.........................
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Stansted North on Uttlesford District Council and former Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Learn more
by Alan Dean on 27 August, 2014
A government inspector’s interrogation light is now beaming down on Uttlesford’s Local Plan and its authors. Inspector Roy Foster has issued his initial questions to the council ahead of the public examination which begins on 17th November 2014. Here is one of his questions.
At the point when the Council decided that the plan needed to include a new settlement as part of the most appropriate strategy for meeting its assessed housing needs, which candidate locations/sites were identified and considered for that purpose and how was Elsenham judged to be the most justified and effective as compared with reasonable alternatives? Those making representations to the plan suggest a number of other potential/locations sites for new settlements. Which of these were/were not considered during the Council’s process?
The answer is…………NONE! I blogged several times on the Tory’s U-turn behind closed doors last November and December.
This should set tremors rumbling beneath the cabinet and planning establishment of the council. The decision was a party political decision that was rushed through and was not founded on an open and transparent process.
This could be the starting point for the Uttlesford Local Plan being declared unsound. And where does that leave the council with its cowardly and shameful decision not to defend the Fairfield, Elsenham appeal. Regrettably, in a hole of its own digging!
Read here the list of questions from the inspector.
18 Comments
I daren’t even think that this is likely to give us a little hope? The council are very good at wheedling , lying and bullying? Their way out if things.
I agree with Janet Harris. The council have continually lied to us about the local plan, telling us there are no sites available other than Elsenham. They have had thousands of letters of objection but ignored them all. In their own words “if we took any notice of objections, we would get nothing done”. This is not democratic.rthemrk
If it helps, I have witnessed Mr Foster running an inquiry on the Bentfield Green application from Taylor Wimpey. Despite a lacklustre performance from the council legal team (interestingly the same barrister that declares Fairfield and Kier to be lost causes) Mr Foster took note of the residents views and dismissed the appeal.
As to bullying the inspector, never going to happen. Lying to an inspector carries significant risk and as to wheedling….there is little the council can do to make its duff plan look workable.
To think that if they had been open, honest and transparent, gone into meaningful consultation processes and tried to involve residents in the plan development process instead of their secretive and incompetent machinations, the district might well have had an adopted and respected local plan some time ago.
Keith, the inspector at the Bentfield Green inquiry was Paul Dobsen not Roy Foster.
An aspect of the Draft Local Plan and the upcoming examination in Public that particularly interests me fall under the heading ‘Duty to Co-operate’. Local Planning Authorities must include in their Draft Plan evidence that they have consulted with other authorities (neighbouring LAs and statutory undertakings, transport authorities, health authorities, etc.) and also non-statutory bodies,
such as environmental organisations. LPAs have to be able to demonstrate that such consultation is an implicit part of their Local Plan and has been an on-going part of the plan process from the outset. Over the past 18 months a number of local plans have failed in this respect, often because the LPAs concerned were unable to show that there had been a substantive dialogue with other bodies throughout. Such evidence as was contained within the submitted plan was plainly a last-minute ‘add-on’ to the plan document. It appears to me
that such evidence as UDC has included in its submission falls into one of these categories and therefore it is questionable whether our Draft Local Plan will progress.
It would be interesting to hear the views of others on this subject.
A little crystal ball gazing: if the Draft Local Plan fails to get past the Inspector – as it very well might – how do we re-boot the process? I cannot imagine for one moment that the council leadership would suddenly call upon the community of Uttlesford and all upstanding citizens to help them out of the hole they have dug. Their overweening arrogance would never allow such an admission of failure and loss of face. We might then be presented with several months of stalemate leading up to the Local Elections in May 2015, and the task of re-commencing the process would then be left to a new, and probably relatively inexperienced, administration of all political colours and none to get stuck into the task afresh. They could do no worse than the present administration and, arguably, might do very much better, but we would still have no respite from the continuing onslaught of developers’ applications and a succession of planning appeals. Not a prospect to look forward to, but the odds against this are shortening by the day!
‘An Inspector Calls’ – the situation is almost a parody of J B Priestley’s famous work.
I like it, Geoff. 🙂
Unsure quite how I confused the plan inspector with the Bentfield Green inspector, but obviously I made a mistake and it would be foolish not to acknowledge that.
It remains the case that inspectors need not necessarily be in thrall to the evidence provided by councils/officers. I believe that the inspector will forensically examine various aspects of the draft local plan and find the plan lacking in a variety of those aspects.
It remains to be seen just how much damage the cabinet-led approach to ramming through planning applications has wrought on the district or whether a new administration will have the opportunity to salvage something from the wreckage. I tend towards optimism, partly because the alternative would be to leave the district, and I think that a fresh administration will be able to reassert control over development in Uttlesford as well as engaging with past errors of judgement. It was put to full council recently that full council can correct the errors of committees etc even if that necessitates judicial review.
I think that a new administration would regard judicial review of past errors as an entirely worthwhile use of public funds.
One of the judgements the Planning Inspector, Roy Foster will have to make in the course of his investigations is not just the role of cabinet members in the process, but also the role of individual officers. One problem he is likely to encounter is that a lot of the key council ‘business’ transacted is probably not on the record. There will be quite a lot of ‘who said what and when’, ‘who did what and when’, ‘who asked whom to do what and when’, ‘who should have done what and when’, etc. In fact I’m pretty sure there will be a great deal of mutual recrimination flying around just about now and quite a few unhappy bunnies. Once the dust has settled we, the public, will have to look objectively at whether we want any of those elected members and officers to lead the authority over the next 4+ years. I have some firm ideas on this, but now is not the time to air them: I pose the question because it needs to be asked, and to be answered in the fullness of time by those ‘new brooms’ elected to make such decisions.
I’ve never bought the line that to re-do the Local Plan process would set the District back years. I’ve seen many examples from the commercial sector where pretty complex challenges have been overcome in short timescales by putting the right people, armed with the right information, through the right process with open minds and honest intent. I’m not suggesting that everyone across the district would necessarily be happy with the outcome, but people would be far less likely to reject a solution that has been developed collaboratively and objectively rather than the process we have witnessed here over the last few years which seems to have been guided by politics, certain individual’s egos and the protection of certain communities at the expense of others. I now think it’s highly unlikely that a new local plan will be adopted by May next year, leaving whoever is running the council after the election to sort out this mess.
The process that has been used to develop the current draft local plan can only be described as corrupt and defective.
How else does one describe a process that has been conducted in private, dominated by the views of a small cabal (the cabinet have a significant representation on the local plan working group) and utterly contemptuous of local reservations as expressed in the laughable ‘consultation’ exercises that have taken place.
There is little point conducting consultation if the council is going to ignore anything that contradicts the narrow aims of a handful of egotistical political pygmies with the strategic vision of a fruit fly. The draft plan is money driven, the New Homes Bonus is the driver and yet another example of the law of unforeseen consequences.
The tragedy for Uttlesford is that the damage wrought in the short term by a myopic, egoistic money-grubbing bunch of chancers will be with us for decades, long after they have been consigned to the dustbin of history (next May being an obvious opportunity)
The new administration that takes over next May will have a big task ahead. I take some comfort from the fact that the new administration will be collegiate in their approach, listening to residents and their representatives rather than disregarding or marginalising them. The fact that we are going to be dealing with the consequences of massive self-inflicted wounds will have to be accepted, whether there are mechanisms to sanction those responsible is a moot point at this juncture but deal with the wounds we must.
Developers have had an easy ride in Uttlesford for several years. That does not have to be the case with a new administration that takes a robust attitude to negotiations about what is best for the district and is prepared to be innovative with regard to what is required from developers.
A question for readers to ponder: why has UDC been so reluctant to implement CIL (Community Investment Levy) rather than reliance on S106 agreements.
Hint: CIL cannot be put in place until an up to date local plan has been adopted. There is also the consideration that local councils would be entitled to a share of the monies (25%) and might have the temerity to put the interests of their residents first, ahead of some grand scheme that the poohbahs in UDC have determined upon.
I struggle to express my disappointment at the way strategic planning in Uttlesford has been so grossly mishandled. There has indeed been a great deal of work put into the draft plan, much of the routine boring stuff has been efficiently considered and drafted, the problems come from the vision thing. Contemplate these numbers: the draft local plan has been sent to the inspector for consideration on the vote of 23 out of 44 councillors, barely half. All of the 23 were Conservatives, 9 of them were cabinet members. If the draft plan is considered unsound by the inspector, where does that leave the council, particularly the cabinet?
Keith, sadly, the report of their imminent resignation has been grossly exaggerated – you would have to ‘top’ the lot of them! It’s that old northern expression, ‘brass neck’, that will keep them there till the bitter end, short of a hit squad from the DCLG/PI. Unfortunately, local councillors can no longer be surcharged for mis- feasance/malfeasance in public office, more’s the pity, but that’s what they deserve.
I suggest misfeasance rather than malfeasance, it would be troubling to think that certain members of the council were utterly reckless of the consequences of dishonest behaviour.
The standard for misfeasance is less proscriptive and frankly offers a potential way forward.
I don’t disagree with the rationale of your argument – and I am not a lawyer – but it seems to me that the term ‘malfeasance’ is more applicable in the context of the Option 4 decision. This was a blatant and deliberate attempt to misuse planning policy as a political weapon, a calculated and dishonest use of prevailing planning policy to thwart perceived political opposition. This goes beyond the ‘misfeasance’ definition of failing to apply a ‘duty of care’ towards a plaintiff(s) by improperly or carelessly performing a legal act. We need to bear in mind the harm in terms of worry and anxiety caused to the residents of Henham and Elsenham by an unjustified and unjustifiable planning decision. Also, one must not forget that these families are substantially out of pocket as a direct result of having to mount a costly campaign to fight that decision. It is reasonably clear that the cabinet proceeded with malintent from the outset……..but, as I said, I am not a lawyer!
I think the option needs to be examined, personally I would favour it with regard to the Elsenham, Dunmow and Walden sites, also the administration of the planning committee.
The Leader and the Executive Member for Housing are both Chesterfords ward representatives. Great Chesterford is the alternative for a new settlement. I understand that the ward of the Executive Member for Finance is due to be merged with Chesterfords in the 2015 district election. To what extent is the secret process of drawing up and pushing forward the Local Plan influenced by the local biases of these members?
I am troubled at the apparent lack of concern exhibited by Dunmow residents to the coming onslaught from Land Securities. There were comparatively few people in attendance at the presentation that LS put on at the Saracens Head a week ago and the developer is getting a remarkably easy ride.
Land Securities propose to build about 700 new houses to the north of the Barratts site (west of Tesco) that already has outline planning permission. Their proposal site is greenfield land with no obvious links to Dunmow. LS propose to overcome this by having an access road onto the new bypass. LS have been frankly dishonest in their claims of evidence to support a need for their new housing, a shortfall in the council 5-year supply and the sustainability of the site.
In short, there is no evidence of need, the council has a 5 year supply and the site is wholly unsustainable.
Naturally we can expect officers to support the fresh application when it comes forward.
Various people have asked me why the Land Securities application was co-joined with the Fairfield. The official line is that the two applications are virtually identical and it is efficient and economical to link them. The truth is that regardless of protestations to the contrary, it becomes a beauty contest, with LS as the ugly sister.
Principle and procedural correctness have rather lost currency at UDC while a small cabal desperately try to make the draft plan look workable.