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 28 August, 2016
The poor judgment of some elected members and officers at Uttlesford DC and Essex CC in 2014 have been exposed in a letter from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and a Planning Inspector’s report. The appeal by Fairfield (Elsenham) Limited against Uttlesford’s planning committee’s refusal of their application for 800 dwellings at NE Elsenham has finally been dismissed after 21 months’ delay – and a succession of secretaries of state.
The decision is damning for several reasons:
This 9-year saga of the first and failed local plan plus the multiple debacles over “Hellsenham” has been one of the most pitiful episodes in my 30 years as a member of the council.
I told the present leader of the council on 7 Septmber 2007 that he and his Tory colleagues had made an awful blunder in plucking Option 4 “Hellsenham” from nowhere. I never imagined it would take nine years and enormous cost to bury it.
Some of those who were responsible have already left the council. Others still in post should go. They have cost residents through council tax £1-2 million in wasted work. They have cost groups of residents several £100,000s of their personal money fighting this Tory-driven incompetence since 2007. The impact on morale within the council has been immeasurable. Trust between the council and the residents and businesses of this district evaporated and, whilst it may have recovered somewhat since the start of 2015, we are still not out of the woods – as I will blog about in due course.
Read the Secretary of State’s letter and Inspector’s report.
31 Comments
It is now just over nine years ago that the so called, “Option 4” was presented “out of the blue” by Cllr Ketteridge at the Council’s Environment Committee Meeting on 7th September 2007. The decision was not discussed at the preceding Local Plan Working Group, where Officers recommended Option 1, expansion of Stansted, Dunmow and Saffron Walden. The proposal was shared with the main opposition Liberal Democrat Group, half and hour before the start of the Meeting and with the Leader of the Independent Group as she walked in to the Meeting.
So where did this proposal originate? From the Conservative Group Meeting which took place between the Local Plan and Environment Meetings.
In contrast to professional planning policy where expert studies in road transport, water supply and drainage are sought before choosing a site for development, this was done in retrospect in order to try to justify the political decision to locate a major settlement in an opposition Party Ward. This blatant Party Political action has been vividly highlighted in the Inspector’s Report.
Despite local opposition, the rejection of the location for an eco town by the then Labour Government, the developers were given unusually numerous opportunities to bring forward different proposals all of which were rejected against Officer advice by a brave Planning Committee whose professional planning criteria for refusal every time has now been justly vindicated by the Government. The courageous fight against this flawed proposal over the last nine years by Save Our Villages has cost residents £350 thousand. This has been a shameful episode in the Council’s History with the only optimistic element to it that hopefully lessons have been learnt and that Members and Officers will never let such a situation happen again.
Will attempts be made to recover these costs from the guilty parties? Time seems right for accountability.
Good analysis Alan, as always. Shocking state of affairs. Unfortunately the new Local Plan looks to be heading down same politically driven path.
Well done, Alan! The chickens have really come home to roost, and what you have written echoes my post @R4U a couple of days ago. There I did not specifically mention names, but only by inference. I now add them, Cllrs. AJ Ketteridge, H Rolfe, S Barker and all their fellow-travellers, with some considerable blame attaching to several senior officers, from the former chief executive downwards – they know who they are, and so do we. As you say, the whole business is a scandal and a disgrace to local government in the UK, so yes, we should pursue them for some form of financial compensation since there is no statutory process whereby the council can recoup the ‘missing millions’. What they have done is to recklessly squander the council’s financial resources – equivalent to £50-£60 for each council-taxpaying household in the district of Uttlesford. What angers me most is the constant stream of vitriol and vilification that was poured on those council-members and residents who objected to the manner in which the Local Plan process was being conducted. The reams of paper consumed and the costing in wasted officer-time….. Etc. As a pre-meditated exercise – with its secret meetings -this was an affront to democracy solely to puff up Jim Ketteridge and Howard Rolfe politically in the eyes of local Conservative supporters. We now need to get expert – really expert – legal advice so that we may begin to nail these people down!
If I might be so bold as to point out that as a member of the planning committee I proposed the refusal of the original Elsenham application (seconded by Janice Loughlin)
The officers then stuck the application back in front of us the following month on the ludicrous pretext that we had not been clear about our reasons for refusal. Pressure was exerted to make it clear that the application should be approved. Sadly for the likes of Cheetham and Taylor, I was unimpressed by the ‘pressure’ and again proposed refusal of an obviously inappropriate application, this time seconded by Doug Perry.
The final decision of the minister comes as no surprise to me but I would comment thus. Those responsible for refusing to defend the appeal should be held to account and their reasons should be forensically examined because I can declare unequivocally that the legal advice they relied upon was flawed, as should have been apparent to a child.
Ketteridge, Rolfe and that fool Cheetham (not forgetting useful idiots like Ranger and Hicks) deliberately politicised planning decisions and demonstrated a level of incompetence that I found offensive.
I was right about the local plan, I have been proven right about both Elsenham and the Land Securities application. Ranger is currently chair of the planning committee and he has been on the wrong side of all these matters. Any chance that something can be done to remove him from a position of responsibility?
Paragraph 8.3 of the inspector’s report: “the application was recommended for approval but rejected by members who resolved to delegate authority to refuse the application, BUT GAVE NO REASONS FOR REFUSAL. Is that correct, Keith?
No, Alan, it is not correct. On both occasions we gave clear policy grounds for our decision (can you imagine Janice or Doug supporting my proposal in the absence of legitimate policy grounds?)
I don’t recall the grounds and I have disposed of all council papers I had but I imagine that the policies would have included being outside development limits and loss of agricultural land.
We were unable to use traffic as a reason because ECC Highways in their usual bovine manner had declined to recognise the inability of local roads to accommodate vast additional traffic (though they did come up with a ridiculous one way system which the inspector who dismissed the local plan laughed out of court)
It is depressing that the fools who came up with the Elsenham plan, and the committee members who supported it, have not been called to account for their actions. As to the pusillanimous decision to not defend the appeal, that appalling moral cowardice and duplicity should be made clear to Uttlesford residents, let them know the sort of garbage they put in office.
To reiterate, there WERE sound policy reasons given for the Elsenham refusal and I resent any suggestion to the contrary.
I don’t usually read or write Blogs but I’m making an exception in this case.
The minutes of the planning committee meeting which took place on 2.10.13,and at which I was present, quite clearly state that the policy reasons for refusal on the first application were:
S3. S7 S8 ENV3 and ENV5
Justice…..at last!
Janice Loughlin
I have written to the council’s chief executive asking to see what statements were made to the inspector on the committee’s reasons for refusal. Somewhere the truth seems to have been distorted. It is a fact that officers claimed they had not understood the reasons for refusal. That was used as a ruse to bring the decision back to the committee for re-determination. A very unorthodox action, in my view. It was an attempt to reverse the refusal. I hope the inspector was not fed false information about the committee not giving reasons for its refusal. The only reason issuing the original refusal notice was delegated to the then head of planning and the then committee chairman was because they had stampeded the application through the committee before the consultation period had ended – a action that generated widespread criticism.
Incidentally, I would argue strongly that the behaviour of Ketteridge, Rolfe, Barker and Cheetham constitute misfeasance in public office, attempting to politicise planning strategy and refusing to support a decision of the planning committee.
The failure of the draft local plan in 2014 can be laid squarely at their door. And what of consequences? Rolfe remains leader of his squalid administration, Barker retains a senior position and Ketteridge gets an award for service to the community! As to Cheetham, she never had the sense to question what she was told to do while lacking the charisma and personality to persuade the planning committee to follow her lead.
I never had any qualms about rejecting her steer, or Taylor, and my record on defending planning appeals speaks for itself, as does my analysis of the failed local plan. It is unfortunate that residents didn’t value this last May and the consequences in Dunmow are already making themselves felt but any public spirit I may have have felt, evaporated with the poll and will not return.
I explained to the Walden town clerk how to make UDC reimburse the costs of the Kier appeal but naturally nothing has been done so that is £50K or so down the Swanee along with the £2million that UDC wasted on their so called local plan. Evidently financial prudence is not a major consideration up at Walden.
Alan, with regard to para 8.3, the inspectors report goes into some detail considering the policy reasons for refusal. For example he gives little weight to loss of BMV (best and most versatile) agricultural land because most of Uttlesford falls into that category.
On the other hand he does agree that the proposal would harm the countryside and fails all three elements of sustainability as identified in the NPPF (social, economic and ecological)
The fact that both appeals have failed and the nature of comments made about the gerrymandering intent latent in the Elsenham application make it clear that action needs to be considered against the individuals responsible at council for pushing this ill advised and frankly illicit proposal.
I would strongly argue that any members who supported the Elsenham or Land Securities applications be required to explain themselves, particularly with regard to the former, given the comments made in the SoS decision notice.
Elsenham was a blatant attempt at gerrymandering, overt political interference in the planning process, and those who supported that should be held to account.
Incidentally Alan, I take your point about possible legal repercussions but I would suggest that the fools responsible for the Elsenham debacle are the ones who should be worrying, not the individuals who are prepared to name the guilty parties.
I believe that while on the planning committee I always conducted myself with integrity and put the interests of residents in all wards first and foremost. I do not believe that the same can be said of various current members of the planning committee. And if certain individuals wish to take action against me I am confident that the facts will support me.
Elsenham was a shocking betrayal of residents, as was Kier and I was on the right side of both arguments (not to mention proposing the refusals that led to the appeals). If the idiots on the wrong side of the argument want to compound their wrongdoing, fine by me.
I say again, for emphasis, that those councillors and officers responsible for promoting the Elsenham application must be held to account. The financial aspect alone demands that heads must roll, the political interference in the planning protest calls for members to be barred from public office.
It is ludicrous that the current chair of the planning committee was one of the councillors strongly in favour of both Elsenham and Land Securities, it should be obvious that he is not fit to hold the post, or indeed to be a district councillor. The comments of the inspector, echoed by the minister, clearly identify political interference in the planning process. Anyone with integrity would recognise the position as untenable and resign, but it would appear that integrity is severely lacking at UDC.
I endorse everything that Keith says about the principal participant in this thoroughly unsavoury process. I think we may safely use the words illegal, illicit, conspiratorial, etc. without any qualms or fear of risking legal action. The latest report you have given of the most recent planning meeting suggests that Rolfe will stop at nothing to drag our council through the dirt for his own nefarious ends. His behaviour is suggestive of some small-town mafia operative
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.
And naturally one believes everything that Rolfe says?
Certainly I am prepared to believe that he knows nothing about planning, his track record speaks for itself, and I am sure there are vast areas of human knowledge that are strange to him (ethics and integrity come immediately to mind)
Changing the subject briefly, to blame the recent gang assault in Harlow as a consequence of Brexit is reprehensible and wholly wrong. There has been an ongoing problem with gangs of feral youths and the police have refused to address this with adequate patrolling. The cowardly scum who murdered the unfortunate Pole would have had no idea what Brexit entails and in any case, none of them were old enough to vote.
I believe you are in denial, Keith, about some of the deeply negative motive behind Brexit. The evidence about xenophobia is plain to see: https://t.co/SlMIwWemt5
I’m sorry Alan, but that allegation is virtually unworthy of a response.
Over 17 million people voted to leave the EU, are you seriously suggesting that we are all xenophobes?
Just because Cameron and his oily stooge couldn’t scare people into voting Remain, don’t insult us by suggesting that it was not a rational and logical decision to leave the EU.
As to accusations of xenophobia, if that describes my distaste for the flood of economic migrants illegally entering this country then so be it. If you can explain what possible responsibility this country bears toward the likes of Somalia, Eritrea, Syria etc etc I would still question the legitimacy of their coming here, particularly concealed in lorries rather than legally.
I have never accused any individual or any number of voters of xenophobia. What I do see is that the misinformation and false promises of the Bexit leadership followed by their win has brought out a latent nastiness in some people that belongs to a country that is not mine.
I think that the EU referendum vote has exposed the ugly side of this country – at least for England and Wales.
It is going to take years to get back into the EU but we should campaign for it – no value in pretending the country’s wish is for ever.
After all political parties continue to campaign after a poor general or indeed council election result!
Why do the Remain losers keep whining? There was a debate (laughable, but still a debate) and a vote, which YOU lost so learn to damn well live with democracy or bugger off to North Korea.
I’ve been on the losing side of many elections. Not once have I said “Oh, well, I’ve now got to believe in what the majority voted for”. I will not be starting now. I will continue to campaign for what I and many millions more believe in.
Given that your parliamentary party went from 57 members to 8 at the last general election I sympathise with your sangfroid at losing but since rather more millions wanted leave the EU than remain, it would be seemly for the Remainers to stop their whining and understand what democracy actually stands for (and for emphasis, the EU is wholly undemocratic)
There will NOT be a second referendum, there will NOT be an early general election and MPs will NOT get a vote on implementing Brexit.
Interesting to note that the dire predictions routinely parroted by Remain have not materialised, the world continues to revolve, our economy appears healthy (and that spiv Cameron has gone!!)
Strange how people who voted in a referendum to repatriate what they saw as loss of UK parliamentary democracy, then want to deny that same parliament any say it how the advisory referendum should be followed through.
As for predicted consequences of Brexit not yet having materialised, NOTHING HAS YET CHANGED, so it’s not too surprising. We are still members of the EU.
Uncertainty causes investment to be out on hold, but that may not show up for several years. Investment in UK research is under threat, but will take months to show a clear trend.
The UK’s international reputation for common sense has certainly taken a hit as out standing takes a slide. The Americans, Australians, Chinese and Japanese have all said we either risk disinvestment or are at the back of the queue for trade deals.
I would not be too confident that there will be more benefits and few disbenefits three years hence.
And in all likelihood it will be marginalised people who voted Brexit who will suffer most; such as car workers in Sunderland. Then it really will have become the most self-destructive national tragedy in my lifetime.
And the current good news is that since May the Lib Dems have gained 14 council seats, the Greens 1 and all other parties went south.
Oh wow, 14 council seats, how long before we can look forward to Tiny Tim Farron running the country?
As to the perverted logic of suggesting that because we are currently still in the EU it explains why the dire predictions of Project Fear have not yet materialised, frankly you disappoint me Alan.
As to the suggestion that various countries will not achieve successful trading arrangements with us, more negative nonsense.
Christ alone knows what this country would be like if the posturing clowns who wanted to remain had won the referendum. But hey, they didn’t so they can take their squalid prophesies of doom and stuff them.
And several more Lib Dem wins yesterday coupled with more Tory and UKIP losses. The tide has turned as people wake up to the creeping isolation and looming economic self-harm from Brexit.
And it seems the public is now waking up to its misguided vote: https://twitter.com/sexyukip/status/779291618058858496
Try taking a positive outlook on life, Keith, like Tim does here: http://www.libdems.org.uk/tim-ppb?utm_campaign=1609_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=libdems
Irrespective of whether you agree with Keith’s views, one cannot but help admire the erudition in which they are expressed. Ever considered writing a novel, Keith?
They say we all have a book in us Steve, but whether it is worth writing, let alone reading, is a moot point.
I have led an interesting life and done some unusual things so I suspect my book might interest a few people.
On political judgement I would offer the following: I said that we would vote leave in the referendum. I said that Boris would win both terms as London mayor. I said that the Tories would win a majority in 2015. I proposed refusal of both the Elsenham and Land Securities applications recently rejected by the Secretary of State, and my record on defending other refusals is probably better than any other councillor in the last 10 years.
I predict that Trump will comfortably win the presidency in November. I further predict that the Labour Party will shortly split, as moderates recognise that Corbyn is a total disaster.
As to the Lib Dems, while I genuinely respect Alan, the party to which he belongs has become an irrelevance led by a clown.
The Great Oracle also predicted his Residents party would sweep to victory, but he lost his seat. The powers of clairvoyance obviously deserted him.