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 24 October, 2016
I am posting here a press statement from the local Lib Dem party and the Lib Dem council group. Also available at this link is a statement of principle on how the Lib Dems consider the remaining work on the local plan should be conducted.
——————————————————-
“GET A GRIP” CALL FROM LIB DEMS AS LOCAL PLAN TURMOIL ENGULFS DISTRICT COUNCIL. “SECRECY & CENSORSHIP MUST STOP!”
Uttlesford’s Liberal Democrats have demanded that the council gets a grip of its emerging local plan as the process descended into farce. “Last week was worse than the first week in December 2014, when the last plan was rejected”, said Lib Dem group leader, Alan Dean.
“Two years ago at least we knew the old plan was dead. This week a fresh plan was due to be announced, the press was told about it, the papers were then censored and threatened if they published; but two of them did.
“Meanwhile, many councillors were kept in the dark about this turmoil. Now residents know what the leader of the council and professional planners want them to approve – two new settlements along the A120 corridor, one to the west of Great Dunmow and the other to the east of Great Dunmow.
“It is shocking that the draft plan document is being kept secret from the public and from their elected representatives”, added Cllr Dean.
The Liberal Democrats have published a set of principles on which the local plan should be based. These include:
Alan Dean added: “The arguments in favour of most new homes being built along the A120 corridor from the airport almost to Braintree in two settlements seem half-baked. The third site in contention at Great Chesterford must be properly evaluated and not dismissed on what are questionable grounds, especially if the effects of the Cambridge Phenomenon are to be addressed.
“The Liberal Democrats will not be bounced into an ill-informed decision, so it is good that more time will now be given to evaluating the options rigorously. But all this secrecy and censorship must stop!”
Click here to read the council’s official “pause” statement.
6 Comments
I couldn’t agree more on your point about “Get a grip”. It seems to me that is the essential requirement.
However, given this is an evidence led plan, presumably there is evidence to support the site selections made. I look forward to seeing it. On that basis your observations about “properly evaluated” and “questionable grounds” look premature to say the least.
Lets see the evidence – the briefing given to Members, the draft PPWG papers and lets hear the reasons why the public consultation has been deferred.
Neil
I cannot agree with your assumption, Neil, that it is “premature to say the least” that my challenges are premature. Two analyses of the relative merits of the new settlement sites have been presented to district councillors; firstly on 7 September and secondly and in a different format on 11 October. The first analysis contained glaring and significant inconsistencies from site to site. I provided my own evaluation of this data to planning officers. I have challenged the planners to justify with evidence much of their second evaluation. Assertions are not good enough. My challenge is one of several reasons why the process has been “paused”.
Like you, I am pressing for transparency.
On a simplistic level, I don’t see how building along the A120 helps the north of the District and the M11 link south of Cambridge. To me that means , if many of these workers are to travel north , that our roads through the south to north of the district will get worse. Not everyone travels by motorway. And having condemned Planning’s past decisions , does the government inspectors comments make no difference to to their choices?
We are in danger of violently agreeing here Alan.
The evidence, reasoning and thus “evidence led” conclusions to date need to be published so that all can form a judgement.
Until we see the reasoning and have had a chance to interrogate it, it is indeed premature to say that a settlement should be in place A or place B. The local plan has to look at the needs of Uttlesford, it is a moot question as to whether local authorities nearer Cambridge have requested assistance with their housing needs. If they have not then the Cambridge phenomenon is not of direct relevance to the Uttlesford plan.
Members, such as you, have (rightly and properly) seen more of the reasoning than the rest of us. We now need full disclosure by UDC of where they are and how they got there, so that the community as a whole can review matters.
That said “Get a grip” is something that I would hope commands universal assent.
Neil
Wearing my scrutiny hat, I have today put forward terms of reference for a review of the process and evidence by the national Planning Advisory Service. They produced us a report of the first discarded plan in September 2015. The scrutiny committee meeting was due to take place on November 7th – but there will now be a little delay to give time for the review to be done thoroughly.
We have been in this situation many times with the old Plan. Inept and secretive management strategies have once again led to innuendo and speculation among the Councillors who should have been given the first priority of information. I repeat my view that there should be a vote of no confidence. So called restricted confidentiality among a small clique of Councillors is merely an excuse for the lack of transparency and openness which caused the downfall of the former plan together with a stubborn arrogance of some leading Councillors to pursue an discredited agenda.