Mystery and cover-up surrounds Uttlesford’s mishandling of the 2021 planning appeal by Stansted Airport against Uttlesford Council’s refusal to raise the passenger limit at the local airport.

I FEAR THAT UTTLESFORD’S POLITICAL LEADERS ARE TRYING TO SCAPEGOAT THEIR OWN PLANNING COMMITTEE BY PUBLICLY PILLORYING ITS COUNCILLOR MEMBERS.

A recent “independent” report commissioned by officers at Uttlesford blames the Planning Committee for acting “politically”. The reality is that some senior councillors and planning officers, working hand-in-hand with a planning lawyer, acted “unreasonably”, according to the national Planning Inspectorate. This means that Uttlesford District Council did not follow expected standards of behaviour. The Planning Committee was correctly doing its job.

The result was that these people – who are NOT elected Planning Committee members – landed the Council – and, therefore, local taxpayers – with an enormous multi-million £ penalty charge to compensate the airport for its massive costs for challenging the Council at an appeal.

Last week, I attended the Council’s Scrutiny Committee when it was supposedly considering the “independent” report. I was alarmed at the way the committee was being abused  by those running the Council, effectively by treating it as though it were irrelevant. I had already sent the committee my initial concerns in writing.

This week, I updated my report to reflect what I had seen going wrong.

The updated report can be read or downloaded here.

Yesterday, I sent my report on the controversy in advance of tomorrow’s (Thursday, July 21st, 2022) adjourned Council Meeting to all district councillors and council officers who are involved. In my report, I assert my belief that the official papers for the meeting are partial, are incomplete and make false allegations. Worst still, the official report avoids identifying which councillors were responsible for the mess the council has got itself into.

I see no point in holding a Full Council meeting tomorrow without complete evidence to hand, especially as the chief executive officer told last week’s Scrutiny Committee that he was going to react to the report by making improvements for the future and so didn’t need councillors’ approval. Presumably, the same high-handed attitude will be taken tomorrow.

I fear that democratic standards of governance at Uttlesford District Council are being undermined, whether through panic or because the present political administration is considered to be not up to the job.

I am taking this public stand for the reasons I set out at the beginning of my report:

“I am writing and submitting this report because I am a firm believer in and, to the best of my ability, practiser of the Nolan Principles of public life; in particular of

HONESTY, OBJECTIVITY, OPENNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

“Practising dishonesty, personal subjectivity, opacity and avoiding personal and collective accountability are to be abhorred and called-out.”