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 6 September, 2014
The United Kingdom as we have known it is finished. Whether the Scots vote YES or NO in less than two weeks’ time, the renaissance of democratic participation in Scotland during the referendum campaign will also bring about change in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Read the views of Jonathan Freedland and Deborah Orr from The Guardian.
One of the most profound thoughts comes from Deborah Orr:
Many politicians ask sneeringly what Scotland would gain from the “independence lite” that Alex Salmond is suggesting – an independence that does not break up the UK. They miss the point for a simple, awful reason. They are unused to thinking too much about the electorate, other than at election time, so they cannot see that the revolutionary change would be in how people felt about government, how much greater a stake in government the individual would perceive herself as having. Members of the establishment see voters as giving them a mandate. They are not interested in sharing the mandate with the people who have granted it.
I have highlighted the final sentence because I believe it has a warning message for Uttlesford and the people who currently run the district council from the cabinet at the exclusive centre of the local establishment; the equivalent of a moribund Westminster.
This group of fewer than ten people is responsible for having alienated large numbers of residents. Their latest recruit in charge of community relations is on record for holding the public in utmost contempt unless they agree with his views.
The current episode with the Local Plan demonstrates the disdain the cabinet and its closest and most loyal officers have for everyone else. My last blog post on this subject attracted 18 comments in a month where hits on the blog exceeded 15,000 for the first time.
So, you might ask, what are councillors doing to ensure the inspector receives a frank and honest response to his questions? Not much is permissible, it would seem. I have been prodding the council with my own questions for the past week and so far have received a brush off from cabinet members and officers alike.
There will be a meeting of the Local Plan Working Group on Monday 15th September at 9.30 a.m. You will read that agenda item 5 is Council’s response to the Inspector’s questions. You will not find the proposed answers on the council’s website. I am told they will be made available to council members either at the meeting or at best one working day before the meeting.
I asked to be involved in putting the answers together to make sure they will tell the whole story and will not be an account only of views politically acceptable to the cabinet which has championed the controversial Local Plan. I was told that the answers will be technical answers that only officers can compose and that they will be presented to members a week on Monday for information only. I asked what behind-the-scenes discussions will be held between officers and cabinet members. I received no reply.
So I ask once again, what is the point of the Local Plan Working Group? The answer to that question is: It is to give political cover to the cabinet’s discredited Local Plan without any opportunity to have a say; its member councillors are restricted from changing anything!
Such is the depth of corruption of process and deception to which Uttlesford District Council has sunk.
Will the people of Uttlesford reclaim their democratic rights next May by rejecting this local establishment which sees voters as giving them a mandate but is not interested in sharing the mandate with the people who have granted it?
I rather think they will. The old United Kingdom will soon finish and so will the old Uttlesford.
3 Comments
The local plan working group is dominated by the politburo and has virtually no input into the plan process which is dominated by officers and a tiny cabal of politburo members (not notable by their expertise in planning at any level)
Because the working group is larded with politburo members there is no reasonable way for independent members to affect the outcome. The usual process is for an officer to present a prepared paper and the group nods it through. Any discussion is purely cosmetic. Naturally the public are entirely excluded from the process.
The draft plan that emerges from this undemocratic and parochial process is flawed but the politburo will not recognise ANY challenge, the consultation process with the public is stage managed and worthless (particularly since any dissenting views from the public are disregarded)
Next May will come as a shock to certain individuals as they contemplate an abrupt return to civilian life. But at least Uttlesford will have the chance to return a group of council members who genuinely have the interests of the district at heart.
Those who question the validity of the Draft Local Plan process must concentrate their arguments on the reasonableness of the council’s behaviour. Is it reasonable, for example, for the council to have resisted any input from its electorate? Has this behaviour complied with the correct procedures set out in relevant local government and planning legislation? Did the council embrace the concepts ‘enshrined’ in the Localism Act 2011? – for example, with regard to openness and public access to documentation? Has the council accounted for its internal processes adequately and to the satisfaction of the public? Have individual members of the council’s cabinet responded adequately to the members of the Council and the general public for their decisions, and have they shown themselves ready to be held accountable? One might go on to frame a whole raft of related questions.
Similarly, one might ask: Has the cabinet collectively, and also its several members individually, behaved in a manner which electors and council tax-payers might reasonably expect elected members to behave? Have they upheld the standards of their predecessors in elected office in Uttlesford District Council? Have they shown fair dealing towards those they represent? Have they responded to concerns expressed by residents of their ward and the district as a whole?
Mention has been made of ‘corrupt’ behaviour: if there is alleged corruption, in what form has it been manifested?
Has there been a failure to adhere to correct procedure in accordance with legal requirements of Local Government legislation? Has there been a failure to adhere to the procedures and processes set out in the council’s Constitution document? If there is evidence of ‘corrupt’ behaviour how might it be defined in law? Non-feasance/misfeasance or malfeasance in public office. (These legal distinctions are quite technical, and I attempted to clarify them in a recent posting which you will find below – but please be aware, I am not a lawyer!) Has such behaviour on the part of the council leadership as the public has complained about been merely neglectful? Has it been casual, careless or thoughtless? Has there been malfeasance – a deliberate intent to gain personally or politically by the decisions that have been made? By the cabinet as a whole, or just by certain individuals?
Turning now to the council’s officers…. Have they shown leadership throughout the process, or lack thereof? Have they offered appropriate guidance to the cabinet – and to the council as a whole? Have they shown the neutrality and even-handedness expected of professional officers in advising the council’s leadership? For example, has the Chief Executive or Chief Legal Officer at any point ever advised: “You may not do that!” or: “That course of action would be inadvisable.”? Did they at any point advise the cabinet that members of the electorate should be allowed much fuller engagement and participation in the process of drawing up the Draft Local Plan? Apparently they did not (or else their advice was ignored) Why not? The officers are responsible in the first instance for ensuring that the council adheres to the requirements of its constitution as well as to local government and planning law, as well as plain sound practice. Finally, is the district council able to demonstrate unequivocally that it adheres to the democratic standards expected of public authorities in the United Kingdom?
This is already a very long posting but the points listed are by no means exhaustive, and numerous other questions will present themselves.
Why doesn’t Essex secede? It has a population the size of Estonia, a GDP the size of Slovenia and a growth rate that is higher than the rest of the UK. What could go wrong?