In my last post. I highlighted the institutional unethical corruption and self interest which appears to have become endemic at Malvern Hills District Council with neither Councillors or the Monitoring Officer being able to recognise inappropriate behaviour and conflicts of interest.
I was outraged because I was total shocked that people holding themselves out to act in public office could behave in such a way. Since posting the blog I have come to the sad realisation that perhaps I am just a naive, idealistic fool. It would appear that the reason neither Councillors or Council Officers bat an eyelid at such things is that, far from being the outrageous exception that should shock, they are the accepted norm.
The situation is actually far worse than I had thought. Apart from the highly controversial schemes in Clifton for 48 houses (owned by Councillor Barbara Williams's partner - Councillor B and Plan B in the previous blog) which has got approval and the Clay Green Farm plan for 23 houses in Alfrick (owned by Councillor David Hughes), there is another property developing councillor who I did not know about. Councillor Roger Cousins has had a plan for 50 houses passed in Welland and is now seeking permission for another 30 (well you wouldn't want to waste the opportunity to make hay whilst the sun shines would you?).
Neither had I understood all of the Machaivelian scheming that had taken place in Clifton long before the Blue Shot Meadow scheme was approved (which readers will recall was for the benefit of Councillor Williams's partner, promoted by Greenlight Developments Ltd who have an option over Councillor Hughes's land in Alfrick; and which Councillor Hughes voted through with his casting vote having not declared an interest with Greenlight - do try and keep up Dear Reader).
It turns out Councillor Barbara Williams owns a house that adjoins a potential development site called Steps Farm which came up for planning some time before Blue Shot Meadow. The plans for her partner's site at Blue Shot Meadow were not in the open at that point, nor were they disclosed. She did not disclose her interest in the house or the potential impact of the development on it. She lobbied and voted against Steps Farm, having not excluded herself & having kept quiet about her house and her partners' plans. I leave my increasingly wise and cynical readers to make their own minds up as to whether ensuring Clifton's housing needs were not supplied by the Steps Farm development thus sustaining the need for Blue Shot Meadow to fulfil might have been somewhere in her mind. You might think that but I couldn't possibly comment.
So three of the Councillors, who have been shaping the planning landscape for MHDC have, between them, planning gains on land for 151 houses. This represents a huge amount of money. It was not possible for them to have taken part in any discussion, strategy planning, or individual planning decisions without their judgement being tainted and coloured by the massive personal gains at stake for them. Not voting on their own schemes was clearly not enough, they should not have been involved in anything whatsoever to do with the planning process. The natural conclusion of any reasonable person must be that they should not have been councillors at all.
So one asks, why are they councillors? Did they all have a burning desire to change the local world for the good? Is the Williams/Cousins/Hughes combination some kind of evangelical dream ticket that was like having Ghandi/Mandela/JFK in West Worcestershire righting wrongs and bringing a better standard of life to all of their constituents? Was it purely coincidence that 3 of this small number of people running local politics and planning policy just happened to have the potential to change their own personal financial circumstances beyond recognition (an option which must be quite attractive when one of them runs and owns a company which is insolvent to the tune of £3,555 according to the last set of published accounts)? What are the chances of having 3 people all with that kind of huge interest in the outcome of the planning process turning up in any other organisation in the area?
Perhaps Butch Cassidy, the man with more vision than those with bifocals around him, would suggest that this is not mere coincidence. He might think their motives had more to do with personal gain than the greater good of the area.
The other aspect that shocked me in the lead up to the planning meeting on January 7th was the emphasis people were putting on the political make up on the planning committee. People were concerned that Councillors would vote according to their political affiliations. I had been happily floating along in my world where I thought councillors would vote on the merits of an application not on which party they belonged to or the applicant belonged to. If it was a ridiculous site for 23 houses, down a narrow lane with appalling access, with clear evidence of rare bats that have not been properly monitored, in a village with no facilities and woeful broadband, and not the sort of houses the parish council survey demonstrated the village needs and wants - people might vote on the facts. Oh poor, naive me, what a fool!
Far from being a "non issue" the political bias on the Northern Area committee appears to have been one of the factors which spooked them into a rapid change of direction on January 7th. Having been robustly careering towards pushing Clay Green Farm through during that day and denying concerns of political bias, the unwanted glare of some publicity on their scheming and plotting (thank you Phil Mackie, Peter John and BBC Hereford and Worcester amongst others) the committee decided to defer the plans to the main committee on Feb 5th. Reason, for a more balanced political decision!
We now have to hope that those Councillors who are independent of thought and deed, irrespective of their political affiliations, will stand up to the corruption and self interest that appears to have become the accepted norm in MHDC. I hope they are given the support by their colleagues to vote against Clay Green Farm on its own merits (or total lack of them) and deny Councillor Hughes and Greenlight the windfall that would come at the cost of local democracy and any semblance of respect for the Council. Hopefully the villagers of Alfrick, Lulsley and other villages which are being blighted by this rotten greed will be there en masse to see that defeat.
I'm not entirely convinced that they had bifocals at the time of the Wild West but that won't stop me quoting from my favourite film. But it is time for MHDC to open their eyes and to recognise the cancer within its midst and completely change the way councillors are selected, vetted and then monitored. The current set up and accepted behaviours has totally devalued the good work that the genuine councillors undertake. Instead of providing Councillors with funds to produce self promotional videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6uwqDKuoxA) councillors should not be selected if they have plans to develop their land and must resign the moment decide to do so. They should be heavily fined for delaying such a resignation.
And talking of that film, what were they thinking? Are they really that thick skinned? 3 of the 4 presenters are the very councillors abusing their positions. Become a District Councillor - "it really is very rewarding" - isn't it just.
Wednesday 14 January 2015
Tuesday 6 January 2015
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king; and he would certainly have more vision than Malvern Hills District Council
It is now a couple of months since villagers from Alfrick & Lulsley, supported by residents of Clifton, Upton and Welland, crammed into the planning committee meeting room at Malvern Hills District Council to listen to the outcome of the Clay Green Farm planning application.
The application by Greenlight Developments Ltd, to build 21 houses on the land owned by Council leader David Hughes, was rejected. That decision needed several remarkable things to happen. Some independent thinking Councillors stood up against the scheme and put forward some excellent arguments. That included some Councillors rebelling against the pressure put on them to vote on party political grounds.
The pressure and publicity brought about by the Residents' Group certainly seemed to pay off. Despite being rather patronisingly dismissed as well meaning trouble makers by MHDC's internal Counsel; and being accused by Greellight of carrying out unjustified smear campaigns, it would be difficult to say the glare of publicity we created did not have a significant impact.
Without that glare of publicity, and the challenge to prove independence by voting against the scheme, why else would the Chair of the meeting, hostile to the objections (and objectors) throughout the whole process suddenly have the first hand up supporting rejection? At that stage, of course, we would take any reason for rejection even if it was self motivated political ambition by someone who we believed (supported by learned Counsel's opinion) should not even have been chairing the meeting.
What was fascinating about the process was the completely unintentional outcome of Councillor Hughes' actions. Quote inadvertently he brought together the community. No, he did more than that, he brought together several communities. Whilst the ideas of the "Big Society" may have gone a bit quiet recently, the universal outrage at the behaviour of a hand few of Councillors, DH included, united not only the villagers of Alfrick and Lulsley, but also those of Clifton, Welland and Upton. I don't think anything in recent years has mobilised such a movement from normally quiet spoken rural residents. Not in his wildest dreams could Councillor Hughes have known he would be the reason for the circulation figures of Private Eye in a few quiet villages in Worcestershire to race up to the levels normally expected of The National Trust Magazine and The Shooting Times.
What probably came as a shock to the residents (it certainly did to me) was two particular aspects of this:
1. That the formal rules of conduct in local Government are not fit for purpose. To the average voter, the fact that District Councillors could remain in post whilst pursuing major planning schemes on land owned by themselves or their close associates, and vote on schemes backed by development companies which whom they have a business relationship, was wrong. That some of those Councillors think there was nothing wrong with this, and MHDC seem to agree with them on this, just proves that the system is not fit for purpose. Relying on the technicalities of when a ODI is not a DPI, and is disclosable or not misses the point. Whatever the outcome of the current Police investigation, the voters think this was wrong. I suspect voters would have assumed a higher standard of moral decency amongst DCs. (And please have some sympathy for the Police in the current situation. Short staffed they have allocated a commendable amount of time and resource to investigating what our Counsel has said are actions that have broken the law in respect of the voting on Blue Shot Meadow. A short staffed Police service must have a water tight case to send it to a similarly short staffed Crown Prosecution Service given they will not process anything for 12 months. If this case does not progress, please don't assume that means that there was no wrong doing, just that it cannot be progressed. The Police have not yet reached any conclusions and recent comment in the Press is simply that, the Council Leader's personal comment or PR and not any comment from the Police).
2. I think voters would have assumed that their District Councillors would vote on planning applications purely on the individual merits of the scheme in question and in doing so would wholeheartedly represent the clear views of the residents who elected them. I don't think they realised how much influence party politics has on individual planning issues when the political make up of the committee becomes of crucial importance.
The reaction of the politicians (local and national), and MHDC was along the lines of "You voted us in so you chose us. Your control is at the ballot box." Of course, ultimately this is correct. Given the controversy which the Clay Green Farm plans caused in Alfrick, Councillor Hughes has certainly hung his colours to the mast by stating that he will be standing again for re-election. (Well, no one could accuse him of being over sensitive!).
I have probably been a "lazy" voter in terms of local elections and I wonder if the same is true of others. I have tended to vote according to my national political party leanings rather than really finding out something about those that are standing locally.
This needs to change if we are going to get local politicians who are prepared to operate at a standard of independence and behaviour that is much higher than the weak rules that currently govern them and thereby get closer to what voters would expect of them. We deserve to know a bit more about them beyond the obvious easy soundbites about fighting for more bus services, bin collections, play areas, broadband and so on.
The debacle of the last couple of years at MHDC, and the contempt in which the Council and its officers are held by a large proportion of residents, would have been avoided if Councillors had been asked to pledge just three simple key points, answered honestly, and if they had then abided by that pledge. The Residents' Groups are therefore going to ask anyone standing for a Councillor's seat on MHDC in the May 2015 elections to commit to this pledge - if they don't then we suggest residents challenge their local candidates as to why they will not sign up to it - and then vote accordingly.
The Councillor's Pledge.
I hereby confirm that:
1. I will always put forward and support the views of the residents of the Ward I represent in preference to taking a party political line on contentious issues.
2. I do not have any plans, nor do any members of my family or close associates, to seek planning permission for any multi house development schemes on land we own.
3. If the situation in point 2 changes during my period of office, I will resign immediately as I recognise that voters will view this as a serious conflict of interest with my role as a Councillor.
It isn't that complicated. If someone wants to act as a District Councillor, and restore the trust in that role and in MHDC, why wouldn't they agree to this?
The application by Greenlight Developments Ltd, to build 21 houses on the land owned by Council leader David Hughes, was rejected. That decision needed several remarkable things to happen. Some independent thinking Councillors stood up against the scheme and put forward some excellent arguments. That included some Councillors rebelling against the pressure put on them to vote on party political grounds.
The pressure and publicity brought about by the Residents' Group certainly seemed to pay off. Despite being rather patronisingly dismissed as well meaning trouble makers by MHDC's internal Counsel; and being accused by Greellight of carrying out unjustified smear campaigns, it would be difficult to say the glare of publicity we created did not have a significant impact.
Without that glare of publicity, and the challenge to prove independence by voting against the scheme, why else would the Chair of the meeting, hostile to the objections (and objectors) throughout the whole process suddenly have the first hand up supporting rejection? At that stage, of course, we would take any reason for rejection even if it was self motivated political ambition by someone who we believed (supported by learned Counsel's opinion) should not even have been chairing the meeting.
What was fascinating about the process was the completely unintentional outcome of Councillor Hughes' actions. Quote inadvertently he brought together the community. No, he did more than that, he brought together several communities. Whilst the ideas of the "Big Society" may have gone a bit quiet recently, the universal outrage at the behaviour of a hand few of Councillors, DH included, united not only the villagers of Alfrick and Lulsley, but also those of Clifton, Welland and Upton. I don't think anything in recent years has mobilised such a movement from normally quiet spoken rural residents. Not in his wildest dreams could Councillor Hughes have known he would be the reason for the circulation figures of Private Eye in a few quiet villages in Worcestershire to race up to the levels normally expected of The National Trust Magazine and The Shooting Times.
What probably came as a shock to the residents (it certainly did to me) was two particular aspects of this:
1. That the formal rules of conduct in local Government are not fit for purpose. To the average voter, the fact that District Councillors could remain in post whilst pursuing major planning schemes on land owned by themselves or their close associates, and vote on schemes backed by development companies which whom they have a business relationship, was wrong. That some of those Councillors think there was nothing wrong with this, and MHDC seem to agree with them on this, just proves that the system is not fit for purpose. Relying on the technicalities of when a ODI is not a DPI, and is disclosable or not misses the point. Whatever the outcome of the current Police investigation, the voters think this was wrong. I suspect voters would have assumed a higher standard of moral decency amongst DCs. (And please have some sympathy for the Police in the current situation. Short staffed they have allocated a commendable amount of time and resource to investigating what our Counsel has said are actions that have broken the law in respect of the voting on Blue Shot Meadow. A short staffed Police service must have a water tight case to send it to a similarly short staffed Crown Prosecution Service given they will not process anything for 12 months. If this case does not progress, please don't assume that means that there was no wrong doing, just that it cannot be progressed. The Police have not yet reached any conclusions and recent comment in the Press is simply that, the Council Leader's personal comment or PR and not any comment from the Police).
2. I think voters would have assumed that their District Councillors would vote on planning applications purely on the individual merits of the scheme in question and in doing so would wholeheartedly represent the clear views of the residents who elected them. I don't think they realised how much influence party politics has on individual planning issues when the political make up of the committee becomes of crucial importance.
The reaction of the politicians (local and national), and MHDC was along the lines of "You voted us in so you chose us. Your control is at the ballot box." Of course, ultimately this is correct. Given the controversy which the Clay Green Farm plans caused in Alfrick, Councillor Hughes has certainly hung his colours to the mast by stating that he will be standing again for re-election. (Well, no one could accuse him of being over sensitive!).
I have probably been a "lazy" voter in terms of local elections and I wonder if the same is true of others. I have tended to vote according to my national political party leanings rather than really finding out something about those that are standing locally.
This needs to change if we are going to get local politicians who are prepared to operate at a standard of independence and behaviour that is much higher than the weak rules that currently govern them and thereby get closer to what voters would expect of them. We deserve to know a bit more about them beyond the obvious easy soundbites about fighting for more bus services, bin collections, play areas, broadband and so on.
The debacle of the last couple of years at MHDC, and the contempt in which the Council and its officers are held by a large proportion of residents, would have been avoided if Councillors had been asked to pledge just three simple key points, answered honestly, and if they had then abided by that pledge. The Residents' Groups are therefore going to ask anyone standing for a Councillor's seat on MHDC in the May 2015 elections to commit to this pledge - if they don't then we suggest residents challenge their local candidates as to why they will not sign up to it - and then vote accordingly.
The Councillor's Pledge.
I hereby confirm that:
1. I will always put forward and support the views of the residents of the Ward I represent in preference to taking a party political line on contentious issues.
2. I do not have any plans, nor do any members of my family or close associates, to seek planning permission for any multi house development schemes on land we own.
3. If the situation in point 2 changes during my period of office, I will resign immediately as I recognise that voters will view this as a serious conflict of interest with my role as a Councillor.
It isn't that complicated. If someone wants to act as a District Councillor, and restore the trust in that role and in MHDC, why wouldn't they agree to this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)