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 19 December, 2014
Uttlesford Tories last night agreed to try to put a Local Plan back on the road following its recent rejection by a government planning inspector. But it won’t have a work programme and it won’t have any terms of reference, according to the way they voted.
In an attempt to achieve all-party agreement and a start to rebuilding trust between the council and the public of Uttlesford, I tabled the proposal below. It’s full of lots of jargon, I am afraid. But the Tories were having little of it. They deleted everything in bold type.
There will be NO agreed terms of reference, so no one will know what it’s for. The new working group will have NO work programme, so its members and the public won’t know what it is doing. It may or MAY NOT get under way in January.
Worst of all, it will NOT have a widely respected, independent chairman, but will be chaired by the Conservative leader of the council, Howard Rolfe. Community group representatives will NOT be able to sit at the table take an active role.
I am glad it is almost Christmas. Maybe by New Year the Tories will have come to their senses after a festive break and realised what a public relations disaster they made of last night’s meeting.
The proposal was backed in its entirety by all Liberal Democrat councillors and all Residents 4 Uttlesford and Independent members.
i. The group shall be chaired by a widely respected person (or persons) who will have the confidence of the public of Uttlesford and be able to demonstrate independence from past party political influence over the Local Plan. Joint chairmanship may be an option.
ii. The group shall have a cross-party membership from within the council and shall have community members representing parts of the district and community groups engaged with the Local Plan process.
iii. Terms of reference and modus operandi to be agreed with all participants.
iv. Support arrangements for the group that have been negotiated with the group.
v. The group shall have a work programme that has been agreed with the group.
vi. Formation of the group shall commence in January 2015 and the group shall hold its first meeting by January 30th 2015.
This is what I said at the meeting,
22 Comments
Will they be singing the same song once they, and the public at large, have read the full version of the Planning Inspector’s Report? It’s a great pity this document was not available before last night’s meeting! Mrs Barker’s comment it significant in that it points yet again to the fact that the administration is once again seeking to hide behind its officers. How will they cope with the inspector’s indication of a single-settlement solution – Andrewsfield? Roding Valley? Great Chesterford (completely ruled out, probably)?
We must now look forward to four more months of muddle and temporising. Roll on the Local Elections!
The conduct of the meeting clearly demonstrated the contempt that the Tory group have for residents and any member that disagrees with their discredited orthodoxy.
Howard casts himself as part of the solution, hardly appropriate given that he is hard-wired into the problem, having been a member of the Local Plan Working Group and the cabinet over the past three years or so. I would find it difficult, if not impossible to work with the new group if he were involved.
It bears repeating, Howard and his colleagues have wasted, utterly wasted, several years and a considerable amount of our money on their peurile, politically polluted scheme, a scheme so poorly executed that the inspector felt compelled to carry out a mercy killing at an early stage. They refuse to acknowledge this and appear intent on blundering on with essentially the same rotten approach.
One ray of hope, it is barely 4 months now till the election, certainly once the Christmas period is out of the way so it limits the room for the damage they can cause in so short a time. Hopefully residents will take the opportunity in May to appropriately reward the authors of one of the most ignominious chapters in UDC history. Sweep out the rubbish, welcome in a new administration that will attempt to deal appropriately with the draft local plan.
Merry Christmas to all residents and may the New Year be all we hope for.
“he is hard-wired into the problem, having been a member of the Local Plan Working Group and the cabinet over the past three years or so.”
But you were also a member of the working group. So were two Lib Dem councillors who didn’t mind meeting in private, to the exclusion of the public, so long as they were invited and were able to push their party’s policy of dispersal with no single settlement in Elsenham.
“a new administration that will attempt to deal appropriately with the draft local plan”
That’s likely to be a minority administration or a coalition, facing even tougher choices following the Inspector’s ruling. If the R4U group is involved, I assume it will resist further large-scale development in Saffron Walden and Elsenham will also be ruled out. So who is going to take the brunt of the proposed “garden city”?
Daniel, until the council has gone back to basics, I no one is going to engage in bids for there or instant claims of not round here. This time it has to be evidence based and with a clearer rationale that rejects the first come, first served system. We await the inspector’s full report and whether he has a solution to another two year free for all. He may not, in which case eight wasted years will end with a “plan” or rather a report on past event composed of opportunistic planning permissions by appeal
I was a member of the local plan working group for a few months only. I voted against the Elsenham allocation site and the revised numbers at the working group and at the full council meeting subsequently so don’t expect me to shoulder any responsibility for the cock ups of so-called experienced councillors.
I voted for the motion last December to have the draft plan independently reviewed and I voted against having the draft plan sent to the inspector when it was put to full council in April.
I don’t see much else I could have done to make my reservations about the draft plan any clearer. I am resisting the temptation to say ‘I told you so’ because I take no satisfaction from being proved right about how poorly drafted the plan was. The world and his wife were telling Howard and his gang that the Elsenham allocation was utterly misconceived so I was hardly alone in that assessment.
Last night demonstrated that lessons have not been learned, the talk of transparency and consultation no more than empty words from a weak and pointless leader.
Roll on May.
Have just been reading the Inspector’s full letter posted on UDC’s website earlier. He has certainly done a through job in despatching the Helsenham proposal.
The council’s press release repeats the assertions that much of the plan is sound. It adds that the council will move the Plan forward in the New Year through full and open dialogue with opposition councillors and residents’ groups in open session:
http://www.uttlesford.gov.uk/article/3299/Council-receives-Inspectors-final-report-into-Uttlesfords-Local-Plan
Whom are we to believe – the Cllr Rolfe of last week’s Full Council Meeting or the Cllr Rolfe of the press release?
The repeated depths of denial and the heights of political propaganda from UDC will make it difficult for opposition groups to trust the declared “new regime”. I will post on today’s news later this evening or first thing Tuesday. It’s one thing to claim that one’s glass is half full when it is half empty; that’s being optimistic. It takes a master propagandist to claim a wine glass is largely useful when the stem is smashed and the bowl is cracked!
I can see already that Working Group Mark2 may well function in a not dissimilar way to WG Mark1 where ‘other contributors’ will be expected to function like the LibDem members of the original ‘Working Group’, there as ‘window-dressing’ to lend the proceedings an air of legitimacy, but with the Tory control freaks ready to rubbish or rebuff anything like a sensible suggestion that does not conform to their pre-conceived agenda. Those that agree to participate should be prepared to hammer out some ground rules before any serious discussion gets under way. It should be made clear from the ‘off’ that the other participants are not going to deal with a Working Group loaded with his cabinet members and other ‘cronies’. It should become obvious by mid-February whether Rolfe is going to play hard-ball or be sensible. If he shows he is willing to ‘co-operate’ only on his terms, that is the point at which all other serious participants get up and walk out. He should be made to understand from the beginning that this is what will happen, and what the consequences will be, both for him and for his administration. We’ve all had enough of his browbeating and bullyboy tactics. He has to be made to honour his words in his press-release.
What is their pre-conceived agenda? And how should it be differently constituted?
Judging on previous performance their agenda is to stop at source any prospect of large scale development – and certainly a new settlement – being sited in the north of the district. Rolfe and others will fight tooth and nail to ensure this does not happen; he will be supported by Mrs Redfern, who tried to head off a similar development in South Cambridgeshire some time ago. They will try once again to direct major development to the south of the district.
It is evident (see wording of press release above) that they are prepared to risk defying the inspector and his recommendation to totally scrap the failed plan and recommence the whole process. Instead they are going for the ‘cut and paste’ option, with parcel tape where necessary. Very short-sighted, very stupid and very, very blinkered and stubborn. They have never attempted to educate themselves on the fundamental workings and processes of the national planning system, and, even now, still believe they can do exactly as they wish, cutting corners, pulling strings and withholding due process from objectors and those who will have to live with their decisions. I have the very strong feeling that some of this will eventually end up in court.
The dispiriting truth is that nothing will be done to sort out the plan between now and the election, there simply isn’t time, barely 4 months and the inspector clearly identified that there was too much wrong to be corrected in 6 months.
I believe R4U have the human resources to begin preparing a plan, I shall explore the potential after Christmas. I feel that time spent debating with Howard and his team would be time wasted, I have heard nothing from them that suggests honest intentions towards repairing the plan, indeed it would seem they persist in denying that it is actually broken.
The history of the plan process speaks for itself, secretive, politicised and above all cack-handed. A new model is demanded before progress can be made.
“I believe R4U have the human resources to begin preparing a plan”
On what premise? R4U have no electoral mandate, they are comprised of just four councillors and their popular support is largely comprised of “We Are Residents” which itself is just one of several local groups. What human resources are there?
You have called for a “garden city”, while the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate Mike Hibbs has suggested a single settlement could be disastrous for the character of Saffron Walden and Great Dunmow. There isn’t even a consensus on how to approach the local plan, so what gives R4U the right to impose its own plan? Personally, I feel extremely alienated by WAR/R4U and it looks like the group has passed its peak.
A more formal involvement of local interest groups in the working group would be far more effective than different groups coming up with their own plans, based on their own interests in the run-up to a local election. This could have been discussed instead of going for a vote of no confidence that was bound to have been dismissed by the majority party.
Getting bored with the antagonism.
Also bored with having words put in my mouth.
On the 5 December, you said that “if a site could be identified for a large single settlement (say 8000 houses) then we move into garden city territory”. You said you had no firm preference, but listed the potential choices as “Dunmow, Chesterford, Elsenham or wherever”. These are your words, not mine. You clearly think that a single site is a possibility that the council should examine. Such an option is something that Mike Hibbs said would “threaten the characters of Great Dunmow and Saffron Walden”. As such, there is no consensus on this. So I wonder how R4U can credibly set about developing a superior plan in a parallel process to the working group, particularly when it is a group without any electoral mandate or broad support across the district.
I don’t understand why you think it is antagonistic. This is debate. However, calling people names is antagonistic.
The process should be evidence led not driven by political interference (as has happened to date). Following evidence goes for all parties. The Comparative Sustainability Assessment has always said that a new settlement is best, and developers have promoted at least 7 sites and indicated that they were available. That is why many people have backed a new settlement in the past.
At the recent Local Plan examination UDC publicly distanced themselves from their own Comparative Sustainability Assessment as it didn’t support their dispersed housing strategy. I was at the hearing and the Inspector was clearly not too chuffed with this stance or the lack of replacement comparative sustainability evidence.
The Comparative Sustainability Assessment favoured Elsenham as one of the most sustainable sites. However it is clear that Elsenham is not a good fit based on all the evidence that the Inspector uncovered. This calls into question the scoring or quality of work in the Comparative Sustainability Assessment.
The Inspector’s guidance that Elsenham is a poor fit could not be clearer. He has also guided strongly towards a new settlement, but he cannot definitively say so – it’s not his job to – he can only guide the Council to return with a ‘fundamentally different plan’ that follows his guidance and so is more likely to be found sound.
So all of this means that UDC needs to do its homework; work out the real housing numbers it had tried to hide; undertake a new Comparative Sustainability Analysis to look at dispersed vs new settlement approaches; and call for sites. No one should prejudge that process as it needs to be evidence led, however all previous evidence has pointed towards a new settlement as most sustainable (irrespective of actual site) and so it would be reasonable to expect a similar result this time round too. But we must follow the process and not jump to conclusions.
And we’ll need to watch the UDC Cabinet like hawks for a repeat of political interference because last week they blocked an independent chair for the revamped Local Plan Working Group and also resident, town and parish council participation. These were solid and reasonable proposals by Cllr Alan Dean and the fact the Tories blocked them seems to hint at a Tory leopard that is still refusing to learn from its catastrophic mistakes or change its spots.
The inspector clearly indicates that in his assessment a large single settlement/s may offer the way forward so I appear to be in good company.
I did what I could to argue against the flawed preparation of the local plan and the botched numbers and allocations, particularly the Elsenham site which was obvious political interference bordering on gerrymandering.
As to a mandate to consider ways forward on the plan, R4U have a perfectly legitimate platform and it would be only prudent to start considering options. The question is largely moot as there is no reasonable likelihood that any progress will be made prior to the election, there simply isn’t time.
I am not responsible for the mess that UDC finds itself in. I would hope to make a contribution to the repair process.
It will be interesting to see how the Fairfield and Kier appeals proceed now that the inspector has demolished the argument put forward by UDC not to defend either appeal.
Daniel
One can laud your efforts in endeavouring to get contributors to this dialogue to clarify their ideas and their positions by playing devil’s advocate, but we are now at a point, I feel, when contributions need to take on a more constructive and positive tone if the group of like-minded individuals who have come together, or who are coming together, are to make progress collectively on behalf of our local community. To approach this task questioningly is one thing; to adopt what appears to be an increasingly cynical tone is, I suggest, becoming unhelpful, counter-productive, and tending to belittle the efforts of those of good intent who are intent on initiating radical change in the way we ‘do politics’ in Uttlesford. We accept your analytical approach, but speaking personally, I feel it would be better both from your own and others’ standpoint if you could state unequivocally whether or not you wish to be part of this endeavour – inside the tent or outside of it – and more comfortable for both.
As a resident, I’ll take whatever position I want and ask politicians what questions I like. I am not accountable to you, councillors are meant to be accountable to me. The “tent” is much broader than party politics.
I have very good grounds for adopting a more circumspect approach. But I believe I have, in comments on this blog, given praise where it is due. For example, I have stated on a number of occasions that Alan was in a minority of one when publicly questioning the conduct of the local plan working group and was proven right – hence the changes made since the Inspector’s report. He didn’t toe the line and I see no reason why I should stop asking questions either. If people find that “antagonistic” then perhaps they are not being sufficiently open minded and willing to have their assumptions challenged.
“We accept your analytical approach”
Who is “we”?
“I feel it would be better both from your own and others’ standpoint if you could state unequivocally whether or not you wish to be part of this endeavour – inside the tent or outside of it – and more comfortable for both.”
What tent is this, who set it up and who decides who is “in” and “out”? How does one become “part of this endeavour”? Is it by invitation only? And what criteria are imposed for membership?
Your mature contribution to the debate is appreciated.
What does this mean? Are you being sarcastic again? I feel I have made a genuine contribution to the debate, but obviously WAR/Residents FU and the Lib Dems (eg Geoff’s comment above) think otherwise because I don’t automatically accept everything they say.
Your contribution was never other than political point scoring and general nuisance. I have no words to describe my contempt for you and your ambitions.