A challenge laid down to MHDC Planning Committee. Answer these simple questions to prove to the public that you can decide this application.

Alfrick and Lulsley Residents' Group has asked the Councillors on the Planning Committee due to decide on Leader David Hughes' controversial planning scheme tomorrow (Thursday 5th February) a few simple questions. If they really do believe they have the impartiality to decide this case on its merits, they shouldn't be afraid to answer these in public forum.

We await to see if they can do this.

The text of our request:

Dear Councillors

 We are writing to you in connection with the Planning Committee meeting due to take place on Thursday 5^th February at 6.30pm and Application 14/00894/OUT in particular.

The Residents’ Group which we represent is deeply concerned with the procedure and governance issues surrounding this case and are worried that matters may take a further turn for the worse on Thursday. We believe that some of you may be in danger of breaking the law in these highly unusual circumstances and our own legal advice is at odds with that which we understand your Governance Officers have provided to you.

You may be aware that we believe Councillor David Hughes did not act correctly in taking part in the Blue Shot Meadow, Clifton application vote. We, along with many residents of Clifton, cannot see how Mr Hughes did not have a disclosable interest, given that the development company involved with Blue Shot Meadow, Greenlight Developments Ltd, is the same as the one behind the Clay Green Farm application. Mr Hughes did not disclose that interest, and voted on the application.

A number of people reported this to Mr John Williams as Monitoring Officer of MHDC who dismissed those concerns with the reply that there was no case to answer. His reply was at odds with Counsel’s Opinion which we obtained. That opinion said Mr Hughes' lack of disclosure and his involvement in the vote was wrong, broke the law and the next level of remedy after the Monitoring Officer was to report his actions to the Police.

This has been done and the Police are now investigating. Since we have raised public awareness of this issue, and the Police have started their enquiries, Mr Williams has informed us that he is now reconsidering his decision as he now believes it is in the public interest.

You should be aware that another report has been sent to the Police in respect of the behaviour of Mrs Barbara Williams in connection with planning applications in Clifton.

The divergence of view between the advice being provided with MHDC and our outside expert, together with the change in view of Mr Williams, may be (or should be) something that gives you cause for concern.

You will also be aware that we raised concerns before the Northern Area Planning Meeting in January at which this application was due to be heard.

The determination of planning applications in MHDC has become particularly complicated because of the highly unusual housing development planning applications of several District Councillors. We suspect when the governance rules were drawn up, it was not envisaged that several Councillors in such a district would have interests in sizeable housing development plans.

We were concerned that the close relationship with Mr Hughes, as Leader of the Council and leader of the Conservative group within the Council, and the Northern Area Planning Committee would inevitably impair the impartiality of the decision and potentially open up charges of pre determination and bias.

Those concerns were again dismissed by Mr Williams’ advice to the Councillors attending however, they took the decision that the application should be referred to you at the full committee apparently because of the ‘sensitivities’ involved.

We believe that there remain concerns as to the make up of the committee due to decide on the application on Thursday. Our prime concerns are as follows:

1    We have Counsel’s Opinion which states that a Portfolio Holder, who is in a paid position with MHDC, and was appointed by David Hughes as Leader of the Council, has an ODI and cannot take part in the meeting and vote on Thursday without committing a criminal offence. This legal advice does not agree with the advice we believe you have received from Mr Williams. 

       We believe that the advice you have received may be partial or otherwise misleading but that is a matter for your own judgement. Our advice has come from Scott Stemp, a Planning Law Barrister based in Southampton. We obviously do not know who has provided the legal advice you are being asked to rely on, whether the advice was specific or general in nature, and what questions were posed when the advice was sought. You may feel that you require the answers to such questions before determining the Application. Certainly, one would hope this has not come from Number 5 Chambers in Birmingham given that a member of that set is one of the owners of Greenlight Developments.

2.    We also believe that when a Conservative member of the planning committee is not able to attend a meeting, then the substitute is either appointed, or their appointment approved, by David Hughes as leader of the party. Our Counsel’s Opinion states that someone being substituted in these circumstances should not take part in the meeting or the vote. Again, this appears at odds with Mr Williams’ advice.

We understand that Mr Williams has advised that failure to disclose a DPI or ODI does not invalidate the decision to approve a planning application. Scott Stemp comments:

“Non-disclosure of a DPI does not automatically invalidate a planning permission.

 It would be the commission of a criminal offence by the Councillor who did not disclose that DPI however”.

 Whether or not any Councillor feels that they can take part in a meeting is of course a personal decision. That must be a balance of their own conscience and the advice they receive and will no doubt bear in mind the potential personal and reputational consequences of subsequent scrutiny.

We must comment that to participate in a vote knowing that one is conflicted and to do so purely to see an Application proceed would be an act very much in bad faith. We are very surprised to see such advice emanating from a Monitoring Officer whose role is to uphold (or indeed to improve) Standards. We feel sure that no Councillor would choose to take that approach, particularly given the likely personal consequences of such an act.

We would hope that Councillors will also take into account what the public would feel is the “right” thing to do. For all the differing legal opinions and nuances of the Localism Act, the public has responded to us very clearly that they do not feel the MHDC governance in this case is what should be expected. There is a clear opportunity to show the public that MHDC does take ethical conduct seriously.

We would therefore ask each Councillor taking part in Thursday’s meeting to answer, and make public their answers, to the following questions: 

1. Were you selected by David Hughes to be at the meeting or was your selection ratified by David Hughes?

2. Do you hold any position within the Council, that is paid and which David Hughes had any influence in allocating?

3. Have you got any financial or business link whatsoever, through yourself or your family, to Greenlight Developments Ltd or any other business in which its owners have an interest?

4. Do you, or any close associates or close relatives, own any land on which you have any intention of seeking planning permission for multiple housing development?

5. Will you be voting on the Clay Green Farm planning application either on the grounds of political party loyalty or instruction from anybody else? 

If the answer is yes to any of these, then you should not be taking part in this meeting. We are telling the press that we are asking these questions of you.

We had hoped that one of us could speak to the meeting in the Public Participation slot to express our concerns about conflicts of interest. We were refused permission by the Monitoring Officer which we feel flies in the face of the expressed desire for more public participation in democracy and given the public interest in this matter.

We have taken the decision to attach a copy of our Counsel's Opinion for you given the seriousness of this matter.

Yours sincerely

Ian Smith and David Flanagan

Co Chairs of Alfrick and Lulsley Residents’ Group Ltd

"Who are those guys?" or The Disgraceful Saga of Malvern Hills District Council Reaches a Pivotal Moment

If you have read my two previous posts (and it would seem a few of you have, including I understand, a few Councillors), then you will be familiar with the saga so far. (And how long I bang on for, so apologies for the lack of brevity). Murky goings on, millions of pounds worth of development gains in the personal hands of District Councillors, politics and political bias, so many conflicts of interest it is difficult to find people not conflicted, and a governance system and officials who appear impotent (and not willing) to rid the Council of a group of people whose behaviour and lack of ethics are leaving its reputation in tatters. If this was an Archers storyline, The Radio Times would be full of letters of complaint saying it is too far fetched to be realistic.

This disgraceful episode reaches a crucial stage on Thursday 5th February at 6.30 at the MHDC Chambers. If you are a journalist reading this, I urge you to attend the meeting and give the proceedings and outcome as much publicity as possible. The Public need to know the kind of people they have running local politics.

Quite what happens at that meeting is anyone's guess, as indeed will be the make up of the committee. As well as disclosable interests, Councillors will (one hopes) be mindful of "pre determination" and "bias" (especially after their recent Continuing Professional Development course - see further below). They must judge the Clay Green Farm application on its own merits and must take into account all of the information placed before them and not just follow the recommendation of their planning department which itself is too close to the main players in this farce and their political group. Hopefully, one of the factors they will want to consider is the public ridicule that both they and the Council will suffer if they don't stand up against Councillors pushing through personal planning schemes when this sorry tale is revealed to the general public.

I understand that it is Conservative Group policy that if someone cannot attend a meeting, the leader of the Group (a certain D Hughes) can select the alternate. An interest concept of impartiality. The meeting, I believe, will be chaired by Melanie Baker, a close political ally of Mr Hughes and someone appointed to her paid Portfolio post by David Hughes.

With one of the possible outcomes, if Councillor Hughes wins approval for his Clay Green Farm scheme with Greenlight Developments, and continues in office, then you will have witnessed one of the most outrageous abuses of power and position you are likely to see. (Please don't get me wrong, Hughes resigning on Thursday would not absolve him of any of his behaviour so far - he should not have stood for office in the first place with his development plans, and at the very least should have resigned the moment he decided to take them forward). However, the man's behaviour so far would dictate that a Rhino's skin would appear fragile compared with his own; not only is he not planning on resigning, he has already told people that he plans to stand for re-election in May! Quite incredible.

At one stage, we feared that the behind the scenes manoeuvring of the politicians within his own party might mean that they were looking to grant him the planning he wanted on CGF in return for him stepping down as Leader (keep those concepts of pre determination and bias in the front of your mind during my waffling). However, it would appear that the local Conservative MP has stepped in and demanded unity amongst the party at MHDC level (and therefore stopping the plot to oust him) for fear of upsetting the applecart before the May elections.

The same MP, Harriett Baldwin, has distanced herself from the whole sordid affair when her constituents have asked her in intervene. One of the residents of Clifton received a reply to his request. In that letter, Mrs Baldwin said she was sure people would prefer local planning decisions to be made locally, by democratically elected Councillors rather than in Westminster. Of course that is true. However, what people actually want, is people who stand for election to be honest and open about their personal agendas and interests, for them to resign if they have such fundamental personal interests in the planning process that they cannot be impartial, and to vote for planning applications on their merits, not on party political grounds.

Mrs Baldwin also said "I am sure the democratically elected councillors will be listening to their electorate especially closely at this time (with an election in May)." With the greatest of respect Mrs Baldwin, I don't think anything Mr Hughes is doing shows he is remotely interested in his electorate. Perhaps instead he is thinking of the likely 7 figure sum coming his way if he gets his planning permission.

Meanwhile, he appears to be floating along impervious to the criticisms being levelled against him; the virtually unanimous disgust of his constituents and neighbours in Alfrick at what he is trying to do to their village; and that the Police are taking very seriously the complaints that he broke the law which the Monitoring Officer dismissed but Planning Counsel believes are valid.

In the Malvern Gazette on January 23rd, Mr Hughes, when questioned about the Police enquiry, was quoted as saying "I am confident I have done nothing wrong."

You will recall from my earlier blog that Mr Hughes, who has a business relationship with Greenlight Developments Ltd, failed to declare that interest when they promoted the Blue Shot Meadow site and he voted on that. (Mrs Williams of course having voted against a previous scheme in Clifton which the village did support but would have blocked Blue Shot Meadow and she having not disclosed that plans were already drawn up for BSM at that time).

So there is no question that he has done wrong. Which is why a completely independent planning specialist barrister has given a formal opinion that he has done wrong; it is why the Police are taking this seriously and it is why anyone not involved with this that I have spoken to over the last two months believe it is as clear as day that he has done wrong. Rather than explaining why there was a conflict of interest, I asked the Monitoring Officer in my complaint how he reached the conclusion that there wasn't one.

Yet Mr Hughes is"convinced" he has done nothing wrong. This leads me to think that there may be perhaps two possible reasons for this:

1. He actually knows he has done wrong, but he is lying and hopes that by bluffing it out and the general malaise of the governance system around him he will get away with it. (And maybe if he gets planning permission for his development, he'll have some much money he won't care anyway). I don't think the people of MHDC want a liar as the leader of their Council so let's hope this one isn't true.

2. He genuinely thinks he has not done anything wrong. This would go against common sense, any sense of decency and the code of conduct for District Councillors. But I suppose it is just possible that he has missed all of this, he has failed to understand what is blindingly obvious to everyone else and he really thinks he can be involved in the planning process for one of his business partners. Perhaps it might have helped him if the law firm Bevan Brittan had given their seminar on 'Probity in Planning" some time ago rather than on Thursday last week. That should have cleared the fog in his mind for him. (By the way, buy the person who booked that pre Council meeting entertainment a drink! How ironic that they should be getting that training now. Whoever booked it is either running scared or has a great sense of humour).

If Mr Hughes really does think he has done no wrong, then he is either in Walter Mitty country (perhaps he has said he is right so many times to himself that he now believes that) or he does not have the intellect to carry out the duties of the post to which he was elected.

Of course, another outcome on Thursday might be that the CGF scheme is turned down and the councillors voting on the evening ignore party loyalties, loyalty to the Leader that appointed them to paid posts in the Council and simply vote for what the public would see as the right answer - that this scheme is not suitable for Alfrick and it is totally wrong for Councillor Hughes to receive a windfall profit having not acted in the highest standards for his office. In my previous posts I listed the 7 principles for acting in public office. I would add here a sentence from the job description of the MHDC Leader:

"The jobholder will be expected to exemplify the highest standards of conduct, probity, open and transparent government and equality & diversity". What it doesn't go on to say is "but don't worry if your behaviour and actions have been so poor, and our own internal system of self governance so weak, that the residents that we are here to serve will be forced to report your actions to the police who will need to waste valuable resources on investigating you."

If that does happen, then it will be a triumph for the residents of Alfrick and Lulsley, the people of Clifton and Upton who have supported them and a few decent and honest councillors who have fought to expose this corruption. It will also be a shameful day for those responsible for the ethical standards of MHDC, the District Councillors who have continued in post whilst having personal housing development schemes, those that have not stood up against this and the outside parties who have failed to act.

It is now in the public domain that Councillor Hughes has been reported to the Police for taking part in the Blue Shot Meadow planning application despite a blindly obvious conflict of interest. The Police should be applauded for the level of seriousness with which they are taking the complaint and the courtesy and respect that they have shown the residents who have made the complaint. Of course, many residents had already complained to MHDC about this but their concerns were dismissed (as previously reported here). Interestingly, the Monitoring Officer has now seen the light. Rather than there being no case to answer, he has decided to re-examine his previous decision. It is now apparently 'in the public interest" to re-examine his decision.

I think not. It was in the public interest to deal properly with the complaints in the first place because they highlighted the Leader of the Council flagrantly ignoring his loss of impartiality on all planning matters but very specifically on Blue Shot Meadow. It is only since that matter has been reported to the Police and the residents have managed to expose the wrong doings to a wider audience, that this decision has been made. I suspect a more accurate explanation would have been "I now consider it is in my self interest to re-examine my decision". The light, rather than a flash of inspiration, is probably a damn big train coming straight at him down the tunnel.

I was hoping to speak at the meeting on Thursday. There are a number of slots at the start of the meeting (any of the committee meetings held by MHDC) at which the public can speak for 5 minutes on any agenda item (it's part of Public Participation in a better democratic process you know). I asked to speak about conflicts of interest and disclosable interests (to highlight in public forum and in front of the Councillors this matter which is of the utmost importance). I pointed out to 'Democratic Services" that I really didn't mind which agenda item I spoke about, they are all impacted by having Councillors who are flagrantly breaching their overall ethical duty to the electorate and a Monitoring system that doesn't work.

You will not be surprised to hear that I am not being allowed to speak. The Monitoring Officer informed me of this.

It is appalling that residents of the villages, many of whom are pensioners, have had to spend their own money on commissioning legal advice to demonstrate the wrong doing. It shows an amazing community spirit but it is wrong - this should be the Council's responsibility to sort out. And let's not forget this has been brought about but Councillors standing for office, or remaining in office, when their impartiality has been terminally compromised by the personal development gains. They have brought this about and, in my view, the Council should sue them for bringing MHDC into disrepute and to repay the residents their legal costs.

Whilst I have been rambling on for several pages, I'd better perhaps put my comments in context. Readers may think I am another "Nimbyish" neighbour worried about the view from my guest bedroom and against any development per se in our beautiful villages. So a few facts that might clear up any misunderstandings:

1. I do not live in Alfrick, I cannot see the development site and it will have no direct impact on where I live. (I do however think that the large increase in cars commuting from Alfrick will have a marked impact on an already dangerous lane through Lulsley and on an incredibly dangerous junction at Knightwick).

2. I do not have a political axe to grind against the Conservative Group within MHDC. Which main political party I vote for is my business and no one else's (but as a 55 year old, one of the owners of a business that employs 300 people, who lives in the country, reads the Telegraph and plays golf, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to have a good guess). I would be just as outraged whichever party was trying to line up the votes for a scheme which will wreck a village for the personal gain of its leader. It is of no relevance which party is involved in the wrong doing, my beef is that a scheme like CGF should have nothing to do politics whatsoever, whichever party's leader stands to benefit from his fellow party members being on the committee. I am surprised at MPs not wanting to get involved to sort this out because this should be highly embarrassing for the Conservatives.

3. Like most other people around here, I am not against development in villages, I just believe it should be carefully thought out, well sited, well serviced and be appropriated designed. Alfrick would probably benefit from a few retirement bungalows, for residents that would like to stay in the village and free up their houses for younger people. But those would need to be sited somewhere safe, designed well and only if ecology and all services (drainage etc) were carefully planned.

So what was the title of the Blog all about "Who are those guys?". Think back to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid again. Do you remember the gang chasing Butch and Sundance? They just kept coming, whatever the main characters did to shake them off. Eventually, the chasers got them and there was a bloodbath which didn't end well for our heroes.

We haven't got a posse of professional gun men. We've just got an odd assortment of outraged local villagers who will not allow those in power to abuse that power and flout their ethical standards for personal gain. This will not end in a shoot out in a Bolivian town square but rest assured, unless MHDC and its Councillors stand up and be counted for what is right, we will keep coming. There won't be any shooting but whether it is in a court room, a ballot box or the national press, there will be a bloodbath.