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 8 December, 2014
Uttlesford council’s Liberal Democrats issued the following press release at 9 a.m. today:
Uttlesford’s Liberal Democrat councillors met on Sunday (December 7th) in the aftermath of last Wednesday’s rejection of the council’s local plan by planning inspector Roy Foster. The council’s main opposition group wants the cabinet members responsible for the failed, unsound plan to step aside to allow a fresh team to develop a new local plan.
Elsenham & Henham’s district councillor, David Morson, said: “The key reason for the plan’s failure is the Tories’ incompetent proposal for ‘Hellsenham’. They just went their own way from the beginning in 2007!
“The inspector agreed with what we have been saying for years; Elsenham is “embedded within a rural road network”. Road access is no good.
“The Lib Dem decision to pull out of the private and secretive working group when I was group leader has been vindicated. The inspector has called for transparency in how land for housing is selected. We demanded that years ago, but the Tories made their choices behind closed doors.”
Cllr Alan Dean, the current leader of the Lib Dems and member for Stansted South, said: “The Tories have wasted eight years and millions of pounds on this rejected plan. Much more taxpayers’ money will now be needed over the next one to two years to put this right. Liberal Democrat persistent criticism of the Tories has been justified. Frankly, Tory behaviour has been scandalous.
“Lib Dem councillors are ready to work with any open minded and competent councillors, with community groups and with individual residents to prepare a plan which is sound and credible. It won’t be easy, but if we are honest with people, work alongside them rather than impose things on them and reject private and secret meetings, we may be able to rebuild trust in the council’s planning process.
“The plan’s architects for the past eight wasted years should fall on their swords. Faces must change or even more time and money will be wasted. Without a local plan the district risks even more planning anarchy as developers get away with what they want. Of that we have had enough!”
14 Comments
It is unacceptable that senior members and staff appear unable to acknowledge the scale of their failure and offer even a grudging apology.
People of integrity would have offered resignations before close of play on Wednesday last when it became apparent just how grossly flawed the draft plan was.
What the inspector did was akin to the referee blowing the whistle 20 minutes into the second half and saying to one of the teams ‘Go and get an early bath lads, you are just embarrassing yourselves’. Our team appear to have brought the council into disrepute, certainly into the worst 15 councils in the country.
Are we likely to get an explanation from UDC as to how the draft plan was put before the inspector in such a defective state? We are more likely to see flocks of Gloucester Old Spots doing aerobatics over Walden.
I fully endorse the stance of the Liberal Democrat Council Group. The main task in the New Year will be to hold Councillor Rolfe to his promise of consultation and co-operation. with residents and opposition councillors.
What, one may ask, is the reason for this change of mood so late in the day, and why should we be convinced by his sudden declaration of good intent? The proof of this particular pudding will be very much in the eating. And what are we to make of the council’s announcement last week, to suggest that all the dismissed Draft Local Plan requires is a few tweaks here and there and re-submission in a few months’ time all will be right as rain?
I doubt that Cllr Rolfe – and by the same token the council’s senior officers – really believes what he is saying about the inspectors interim statement with respect to the plan, and he must know that his words will soon to be tested in the fire.
The council’s leadership and senior officers are extremely foolish to think that they can take an experienced planning inspector for a ride by deliberately misrepresenting and distorting what he has actually stated about Uttlesford’s Draft Local Plan. I’m quite sure that Mr Foster will give them very short shrift in the very near future.
Let’s hope that the council’s Conservative members will find the courage to ask their leadership some tough questions too.
I would like to know what the opposition would do differently. Alan Dean stated the following:
“The Lib Dem approach remains that no town or village can be preserved in aspic or it will slowly age and lose its vitality. It’s all a matter of scale and timing and installing the necessary infrastructure. Now that the numbers appear to be heading upwards again, the case for a new settlement is stronger, but that will not mean no growth in existing settlements. Once we cross the threshold to a new settlement, the likelihood is that demand will escalate and the total numbers with it.”
Keith Mackman states: “If a site could be identified for a large single settlement (say 8000 houses) then we move into garden city territory and the rules of the game change somewhat. I am not fully briefed on how garden cities work, but essentially it is a mixed use project encompassing residential, employment and leisure facilities. I believe the government assists with funding, but the size of the project means that roads and other infrastructure come as part of the package, along with schools and possibly a hospital. The site could be any of a number around the district. I have no firm preference, the debate needs to take place. Whether the choice were Dunmow, Chesterford, Elsenham or wherever, it would have been the result of proper consultation, something that has been totally missing up till now.”
There is a consensus: a single site will be inevitable to absorb the numbers of houses, even if there is some element of dispersal. The basic premise of the draft local plan will be carried forward.
Since Elsenham scored 32 compared to 29 for Great Chesterford for a single large settlement, what will the opposition groups propose that is radically different from the rejected draft local plan? Could we see Mr Mackman’s “garden city” of 8,000 homes east of Elsenham, which is four times bigger than the 2,000 proposed north of the village? Will the SHLAA need to be reassessed in order to find new sites? How will the council make any settlement sustainable when it has no ability to pledge any public services and when the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are preparing for a fiscal onslaught that will ravage front line services in the name of “austerity”?
Local people will have to prepare for the worst. There is no option. We will have 11,000 houses – probably more, given the goal posts seem to be shifted every year by Whitehall – and absolutely no certainty that there will be sufficient infrastructure.
Stansted is struggling to recruit just one extra GP because of the national shortage of general practitioners as a result of the policies of successive administrations; it currently has a woeful 2.5 serving nearly 10,000 adults on its roll. Saffron Walden is suffering the same pressures. Do you seriously think we’ll have adequate primary care services for the 35,000-40,000 people due to move into the area in the next 15 years? Will any of this resolve long-standing housing shortages for the low wages? Ha, I doubt it!
What’s Alan Haselhurst doing about it? Throughout his career, he’s voted for cuts in public services, privatisation and the liberalisation of planning laws. We are going to suffer as a result of the aggressive neo-liberal agenda the political establishment has been imposing on this nation, for the sake of the profiteering fat cat business class.
I don’t know what the solution is, but it won’t be resolved by a change of leader or a change of administration in Uttlesford.
Daniel seems to be a little negative, almost self-indulgently so.
A large settlement of around 8000 near Elsenham would be entirely different to the rejected draft plan, as indeed would a large single settlement ANYWHERE in the district. I have never suggested a preference for any particular site, Elsenham, Chesterford or wherever.
As to carrying forward the basic premise of the rejected plan, since that was dispersal along the hierarchy of settlements and the inspector has dismissed that as achievable, perhaps we could acknowledge that the way forward will be a mixture of large new settlement(s) and an element of dispersed development.
I do not share the pessimistic view of the future, if we did not believe things could be better what would be the point of standing for election? Better to recognise that the current regime have totally fouled things up and give a new group the opportunity to correct things.
The local plan that will emerge as a result of full and proper consultation with residents has the potential to do all that the inspector wishes to see. I hope that Daniel will engate fully in that process, I am sure that he has valuable insights into what will work.
The principles of moving forward have to be:
1. A new plan based on evidence and not on perceived party political advantage and dogma.
2. A bottom-up approach which looks widely at the district as it is, its strengths, its weaknesses, and identifies in broad terms the best areas for development based on clear reasons.
3. An examination of all towns and most villages to see which would benefit from development and broadly on what scale.
4. A proper examination of what is known as the Objectively Assessed Housing Need to come up with an approximate annual total for new homes. (Not done so far by UDC.)
5. Assess where Uttlesford sits in the wider sub-region for both jobs and housing markets and use that evidence to inform decisions.
6. Use the above information to work out the broad locations where most new jobs and homes should be located.
7. Decide whether a new settlement(s) is(are) needed and decide strategically where the best broad locations would be and what there relative merits are.
8. Involve the public, including community groups, in the above at all stages. Make sure they understand the options.
9. Call for sites to meet the strategic umbrella objectives now worked out.
10. Make decisions on what and where and explain why in a fully transparent manner.
This is a simplistic list that will need more stages adding and more detail worked out. It will not be achieved simply by changing the council’s administration. It will not be successful if too many people continue to bury their heads in the sand and say “no” to everything. We are where we are because of that.
“A new plan based on evidence and not on perceived party political advantage and dogma.”
While Lib Dem-controlled Elsenham was going to take the biggest hit in the rejected plan, what advantage could Ketteridge and Rolfe have gained from the controversial developments planned in their own Saffron Walden Shire ward? They had no electoral advantage from this, quite the contrary. And it’s possible they could lose their seats over it – Jim Ketteridge lost his ward in a previous election, so he knows the risk.
“A bottom-up approach which looks widely at the district as it is, its strengths, its weaknesses, and identifies in broad terms the best areas for development based on clear reasons.”
I agree with this, but how much will parishes be prepared to take? Alan Haselhurst did a survey of parishes a few years ago to see what they were prepared to accept. He got barely a fifth of the number demanded by the Inspector. At some point, a community or group of communities is going to be very upset and there are only a few that meet the sustainability criteria: Saffron Walden, Elsenham, Stansted, Newport, Great Dunmow and Takeley. At least one of them will get a massive development on their doorstep that will change them forever and politically it will be very challenging. The finalised plan will be as controversial as the one that has just been rejected. “Bottom-up” won’t solve anything if you’re looking for local assent, because this will lead to competitive nimbyism between the various communities. At least Mr Mackman has stuck his neck out and is talking about a “garden city”. Any other approach is just fence-sitting.
“An examination of all towns and most villages to see which would benefit from development and broadly on what scale.”
Isn’t that what the SHLAA is for? Wasn’t Elsenham judged by point scores to be the best for a large-scale development? What needs to happen is the process of making a large-scale development work and that means public services and roads. Who can promise that? Not UDC. I suggest the Tories and Lib Dems look to their national party bosses and interrogate them on why massive development is not being back up by the resources required to make them work. After all, they are in coalition together and share responsibility.
“A proper examination of what is known as the Objectively Assessed Housing Need to come up with an approximate annual total for new homes.”
I don’t know what this means, but if 20-40% of 11,600 houses is council, social and affordable housing, wouldn’t it be sufficient to cover current housing needs?
“Assess where Uttlesford sits in the wider sub-region for both jobs and housing markets and use that evidence to inform decisions.”
There is no regional plan, no regional strategy. The Tories and Lib Dems abolished them when they came to power in favour of “new localism”, which is a code word for putting planning authorities in an impossible situation – creating development without the power to secure investment in services. If we’re screwed over, it’s a joint Lib Dem and Tory responsibility. Anyway, how can you make any informed decision on how the district fits sub-regionally until the surrounding authorities have their local plans in place? If you push a major new settlement towards the borders of the district, how will you know if it’s workable until the neighbouring district has worked out its plan?
I think there should have been more openness and transparency from the outset. It was a political mistake to go through a working group that was tightly controlled by the leadership and did not include stakeholders. And it’s a mistake the political leadership will have to face up to. The secrecy of the process and the failure to take on board the criticisms raised during the consultation was never going to engender public understanding and respect. But let’s not delude ourselves that the challenge is massive and thousands of residents will be upset by the adopted plan, when it is finalised.
“..let’s not delude ourselves that the challenge is massive and thousands of residents will be upset by the adopted plan, when it is finalised.”
I am under no illusions about the challenge ahead. The fundamental reason we are in this mess is because Cllr Jim Ketteridge spun the delusion that under Conservative control housing numbers would evaporate. He led the public to believe that, so many naturally joined the cry “they are not needed”. As recently as summer 2013 Cllr Howard Rolfe was saying the same in public. Populism based on political dogma rather than evidence is a dangerous game and is almost always found out.
“‘An examination of all towns and most villages to see which would benefit from development and broadly on what scale.’ Isn’t that what the SHLAA is for?”
No. The SHLAA is an assessment of a list of sites put forward when the council asked anyone with a plot anywhere to make a bid for development. There was no real prior guidance of where might be best. The rejected local plan contains no real strategic framework. The inspector spotted that when he went out of his way to ask me whether Stansted would find enough of a policy framework in the plan from which to produce a Neighbourhood Plan for Stansted that was compatible with UDC’s Local Plan. It was clear that he had spotted the policy vacuum. I replied “No”! The unsound plan is the result of a crude housing numbers game devoid of adequate guiding principles on where UDC sees the district heading over future decades.
Agreed.
An acknowledgement of their failure from the current controlling Tory group would also assist in the process. If they cannot recognise their mistakes, how can they possibly correct them?
The question is moot, there is insufficient time for them to do anything before the election (it is 5 months away and the inspector clearly stated that the draft plan could not be corrected within 6 months)
The situation facing us is that a small clique of self-obsessed, hubristic Tories forced through a draft plan on largely political grounds that has been soundly hammered by the inspector. They could not even get the base numbers correct and it appears that the lack of adequate roads in the vicinity of Elsenham was disregarded in the desire to submerge the village under housing.
If the situation were not so serious it would be amusing, the sheer lack of grasp, the defective vision, the Toytown vindictiveness of the treatment of Elsenham.
Dispersal across a hierarchy of settlements was the Lib Dem position. The difference between the Lib Dems and Tories had been what position Elsenham should take in that hierarchy.
The population size is due to rise over 40% over the next 15 years of a local plan, which is a CAGR of over 2.8% – that’s four and a half times the national annual population growth rate. It’s well above the 27% growth rate projected by the ONS over 20 years and the 19% for the East of England as a whole. It’s the biggest demographic shock in the area’s history.
Unless people have faith that their quality of life and public services will not be damaged but instead enhanced, there’s no chance they will back any plan. Yet, the planning authority has to plan for infrastructure that is not in its control and probably won’t happen, or falls short, due to the “austerity” measures planned by the political establishment. Even S106s have been found inadequate.
Look at Forest Hall Park in Stansted: no promised shop, the allocated health centre site was found to be too small by the PCT and still there is foot-dragging over a lease, the new school is too small for the size and there is talk of reopening a derelict site, the roads are too narrow and inadequate to deal with the estates needs and volume of traffic. It’s an estate with just 700 houses. And we’re now talking of over 11,000 houses!
A workable plan cannot be achieved unless austerity measures are reversed and that means fighting central government cuts.
As for participating in a local process, I don’t think I’ll bother. I doubt anything I say will interest local politicians. Plus, as I said, without resources secured, a sustainable development is unattainable and there will be chaos.
I disagree Daniel, I am genuinely interested in the points you raise and I am happy to debate with you. If you want to contact me directly on my council email we can arrange an independent email exchange (I prefer using a personal hotmail address for such matters)
Mistakes like Forest Hall Park (and Flitch Green, and Woodlands Park) are a legacy we need to address, certainly we must not repeat and I am determined to do what I can to improve the former and avoid the latter.
Seriously Daniel, contact me on cllrmackman@uttlesford.gov.uk and we can have a proper dialogue. I respect what you have to say and I believe that we can have a sensible exchange of views
You wondered why Ketteridge and Rolfe would risk their seats approving development in Shire Ward. The answer is simple, if prosaic. Ketteridge is not standing next year and Rolfe is jumping ship from Walden in the hope that Ashdon will take him to their collective bosom. The fact that this meant displacing a local candidate was a mere detail, besides, he has been offered the consolation of standing in Stort Valley (at the other end of the district, but heyho, it’s a seat)
Janice Loughlin has consistently held Stort Valley even when the Lib Dems reached rock bottom, so it’s not a great consolation.
The young man would do better to stand as an independent in Ashdon, at least he would have a profile there.
I imagine that Janice will hold Stort Valley next year on the basis that she has been a good councillor for over a decade and her performance on planning has been excellent.
My invitation stands, by the way, I am genuinely interested in opening up a dialogue away from this blog. Many of the points you make above are insightful, you have obviously given some thought to the issues.