There is plenty of coverage of how badly wheelchair users are looked after on public transport and at various venues. I've seen this first hand with my wife Lit who is a wheelchair user.
This was a post from Facebook sent to me by a friend of mine Iain who campaigns to raise awareness on such issues. It's from a user called Steve Skillin.
"Yesterday I went to watch my rugby team Wasps play Worcester Warriors in Worcester. First time there, booked accessibility place and disabled parking.
On arrival the Carpark steward directed me to my space and offered help in getting my scooter out of the car. Then across the road to the stadium, had to go through the main reception, there I was met by another steward who directed me, opening doors to a lift. Up to the first floor met by another steward who took me to the accessibility area. There met by another steward who turned out to be an angel. Ask my name and directed me to my spot. Every ten minutes she came and check on me, offered to go and get me food and trick, which was much appreciated. This continued for the whole game.
The same happened in reverse at the end of the game.
Well done to Worcester Warriors for looking after the disabled so well and employing little angels like my steward.
I shall be emailing the club to complement them.
Wouldn’t it be good if all places behaved like this.
Oh, Wasps won 20-21, happy Waspie."
Monday, 3 September 2018
Wednesday, 29 April 2015
An Open Letter to Councillor David Hughes
Dear Councillor Hughes
You have very recently issued a statement to other members of Malvern Hills District Council in which you referred to the recent controversy over planning applications and the role of you and other District Councillors which included the following statement:
“There has been an aggressive campaign against me by a few people in an attempt to undermine the democratic process of the Council on planning matters.”
I have written this open letter to you to try and explain why the residents in your constituency have reacted in the way they have. And let us be clear, this is not an action by “a few people”. If you have achieved nothing else in your tenure in office, you have inadvertently brought about something of the ideals of “The Big Society” in that you have brought together a number of rural communities and galvanized the actions of a large number of usually quiet and tolerant people. It would be fair to say a high proportion of those stirred into action are conservative with both small and large C’s. Unfortunately, your actions have galvanised opinion against the behaviour of District Councillors many of whom do a wonderful job.
To suggest that the actions have sought to undermine the democratic process could not be further from the truth. The actions have sought to ensure that the democratic process is properly carried out and is not corrupted. Our actions and frustrations arise from our belief that the internal processes of the Council have not been sufficient to get to the heart of the issues here.
I have read with interest the Press Release that you have recently issued and the local press appear to have printed verbatim. In that you state that you consider that your name and reputation has been completely cleared by the fact that the Police are not taking their investigation into local residents’ complaints any further.
Of course, one of the issues with a Police enquiry not proceeding is what to read into that. You have chosen to state that this completely exonerates your behaviour. As most people will be aware, things are actually a little more complicated than that as one has to factor in whether the Police force has the resource to do enough to build a case, take it to the CPS and make it stick. Deciding that they do not have enough to do that is not the same as a finding of complete innocence. We are shortly to meet with the Police to hear first hand their decision for not proceeding and to understand why they disagree with our Counsel’s advice.
But actually, part of the reason for writing this letter to you is to explain why the residents of the Malvern Hills District expect and deserve a level of behaviour that is higher than merely avoiding breaking the law. There are three main aspects to this.
1 1. District Councillors and personal planning applications
MHDC has several District Councillors who have applied (some successfully and yourself, so far, unsuccessfully) for multi house developments on land either they or their close associates own. Between yourself, Councillors Williams and Cousins the number of houses amounts to more than 150.
Of course, anyone is entitled to seek planning permission on their land if they want to. However, when that person is a District Councillor then the matter is far more complex. When controversial schemes are being put forward, and passed, in rural locations in part because there is not an agreement on the SWDP; and those same Councillors are involved, directly or indirectly in the planning strategy for the District, then you must surely see that an outsider might consider there to be a conflict of interest.
At this point, it is worth pointing out that it is actually not the point as to whether people have all acted in a totally independent and impartial manner. Conflicts of interest are all about perception and being seen to be completely independent as well as acting as such. One should not put oneself in a position for anyone to be able to question one’s impartiality.
The number of Councillors with major house gains is an issue. Three of you have had major schemes. I understand that there is another candidate standing in the forthcoming election with a major scheme within their close family. To an outsider, that seems like more than a co-incidence. I cannot think of any other group of 25 or so people in any walk of life who have so many house applications between them.
I said that anyone should be entitled to go for planning permission. If the three Councillors have the chance to go for that, good luck to them if the planning is appropriate for where they live. I am not against suitable development or people having a windfall.
Those applications should be fairly and independently judged and decided on accordingly. But remaining a Councillor is incompatible in such circumstances. The conflicts are too obvious and insurmountable. I actually don’t care whether they have been measured against an DPI, an ODI, granted a dispensation or any other mixture of letters the legislators want to come up with, there is a higher standard of knowing whether something is right, and this was wrong. If Councillors knew they were going for planning permission, they should not have stood for office in the first place. If the opportunity came up after getting into office, they should have resigned. That would have been the ethical thing to do. Such decisions take a bit of courage but isn’t that what is expected in public office?
I have come to the conclusion in this process that the rules as they are laid out must have been drawn up thinking of something much more modest that a multi house development. They would cope with a DC building an extension or a new garage but they are wholly inadequate for what has happened in MHDC. If a Councillor could benefit from a 23, 50 or 100 house development, the financial rewards are eye watering. Taking part in any planning strategy will always have a personal edge to it. Therefore Councillors needed to act to a true ethical standard above the rules and they have failed to do that.
2. Clay Green Farm
I do not know whether you had thought that going for planning permission on your land was a possibility when you stood for office in the Alfrick and Lulsley Ward. You have put great stall in your comments on the democratic process but that process needs to be open and honest. If you were thinking of doing your development, whilst standing to represent the concerns of your residents, you should have told them so they could vote accordingly. (Actually, if you did think that I don’t think you should have stood anyway).
I notice that you have not said in your current election campaign whether you plan to go for permission again on your site. So voters still do not know where you stand. Perhaps you could clarify that for everyone in your next Press Release.
There was virtually universal opposition to your plans within the villagers of Alfrick. In those circumstances, I simply do not understand how you think you could act as their representative. Nor indeed how you could stand again.
The perception of a lack of impartiality is highlighted by the Clay Green Farm process. Prior to you putting in your CGF application and this becoming public, there was an application for some houses at Chapel Meadow in Alfrick. The Parish Council sought your advice on that scheme which was unpopular in the village and they turned to you as someone with detailed knowledge of the planning process. Your advice was that it was futile fighting the scheme as it was bound to be approved on appeal and it was better to let it go through first time but with some conditions.
Chapel Meadow was approved on 5th February 2014. On 9th February 2014 (so four days later) you started verbal discussions with Parish Councillors for the first time that you were considering going for a development on CGF. This was not disclosed in the Chapel Meadow process.
In the CGF application, Chapel Meadow being passed was cited as precedent for development in Alfrick being sustainable.
Was the process and timing all co-incidence? Did you act in the best interests of your residents in Alfrick without any thought of any benefit to your own undisclosed scheme? I have no idea but surely you can see why this might arose suspicions to an outsider. The point about acting at a higher ethical level is to avoid this type of situation. Whether you did everything totally correctly or not, you should not have put yourself in that position of doubt.
3. Blue Shot Meadow
And so to Blue Shot Meadow which was the subject of our complaint to the Police. Your plans for CGF were promoted by Greenlight Developments Ltd. One assumes from the charge on the land registered by them that they entered into an option to buy your land which would usually be subject to exercise on the grant of satisfactory planning permission at a percentage of market value. Whilst you have no ownership interest in Greenlight, you are clearly in a business relationship with them. Effectively you are business partners in a joint venture, your shared objective of which is to obtain suitable planning permission and realise value from that.
The Blue Shot Meadow at Clifton, owned by a close associate of Councillor Williams (her partner), was also promoted by Greenlight Developments Ltd. That scheme if passed would benefit the family of one of your close political allies on the Council and a company with whom you have an ongoing business partnership. Given the number of District Councillors seeking planning permission, and the fact that they are all in the same party, let’s ignore the former issue (I think it stinks but I’m not sure anyone is going to do anything about it).
Your partnership with Greenlight was of significance in your ability to vote impartially on Blue Shot Meadow. At a very basic level, success at Blue Shot would put funds into Greenlight. It is a start up company with no track record or retained reserves. The company’s ability to pursue and fund an appeal on your own land would be directly impacted by Blue shot being passed and therefore giving the company a more valuable asset.
I have no idea whether the terms of your option (and the crucial percentage of market value on which the option price is based) are exactly the same as Blue Shot Meadow and the industry and Greenlight norm. If your deal is better, then why is that? The danger with such close business associations is that might be seen as a potential influence on your impartiality and be seen as a reward. I am not suggesting for one minute that this is the case, but that is not relevant, the point is perception, and the perception is that you are too close to Greenlight to be impartial. The public don’t know the details of your financial relationship but are asked to assume that it has not influenced you. I don’t know if MHDC have investigated this in detail but I would want to if I was carrying out that role.
You did not consider this to be a problem, and you voted on Blue Shot, where your vote was crucial to the scheme passing. You did not disclose any kind of interest and did not have a dispensation to vote as far as I am aware.
We have been told that you took legal advice on this point from the Council’s advisers. We have asked for the full details of that process. However, even if the advice was that you did not have a problem, you must surely see that decision to vote was flawed. On any level of the Seven Standards of Public Office, decency and common sense, you had an insurmountable conflict in voting for a scheme that benefitted your business partner and should not have taken place. You are experienced enough as a politician and businessman to recognise that (or should be). It will be interesting to see how detailed the advice was but if it did say there was not a problem then the Council has a serious problem with the quality of its advice and you were either naïve or sheltering behind some crass advice.
A number of residents from Clifton and Alfrick and Lulsley formally complained about the Blue Shot Meadow process to the Monitoring Officer at MHDC which was the correct procedure. His response was that there was no case to answer. It is not clear yet what sort of process he went through to reach that conclusion (albeit it that your Press Release states that the Chief Executive thoroughly investigated the matter as well as the Monitoring Officer) but that will become clear when recent Freedom of Information requests are fulfilled. I look forward to studying those papers.
In your press statements, you expressed disappointment that a small group appeared to be leading an aggressive campaign against you and implied that going to the Police was not justified. You seemed surprised by this action. Far from being a small group, a large number of residents from Clifton, Alfrick, Lulsley and Welland got together at this stage and started a fighting fund to obtain independent legal advice. Please bear in mind that some elderly residents of very modest means, incensed by this whole saga were contributing to this.
We were advised that if we were not satisfied with the decision of the Monitoring Officer, then our next step was to report this to the Police. Our experienced Counsel felt that you should not have taken part in the Blue Shot Meadow vote so we took that course of action.
Whilst it might have been a bit much to expect an apology from you, I hope that with hindsight you will see that your rather indignant reaction to what has happened is misplaced. You have pursued a series of actions which, whether or not they crossed the rather poorly drawn up rules of local councils, clearly put your impartiality into doubt. The complaints process at MHDC was distinctly underwhelming so you should have expected the possibility of this proceeding to the Police which was the correct course of action.
As residents we are desperately keen that MHDC can actually get its house in order and impose codes of behaviour that regain the trust of residents. We have seen no evidence that there is any appetite to do that. There seems to be a view that none of this is out of the ordinary and the fact that you have galvanised normally respectful villagers into a highly vocal force should give you a clue as to whether this is acceptable in the long term.
Throughout this process I have been deeply shocked by the level of party political partisanship in planning matters. I had naively thought Councillors would vote purely on an application’s merits. However, I have seen evidence of manipulating the political make up of planning committees and instructions being sent on how to vote.
I suspect you may have thought our campaign was led on political grounds and was anti Conservative. From a personal perspective that has certainly not been the case. I will continue to vote Conservative in the national election but you have changed my local voting. I was previously guilty of being a lazy local voter without finding out about local candidates. Having now seen local politics in action, I will be voting for people who I think really represent the interests of their residents irrespective of their party.
You may have seen that we launched a campaign asking Councillors to make a pledge which would have avoided all of these problems. We think this is no more that the average person on the Alfrick Omnibus would expect of their local councillor. So far we have commitments from the Independent, Green and Lib Dem candidates. I am not aware of you or any of your Conservative colleagues making the pledge which is a pity (even if it is 5 years too late for some of you).
The Councillors' 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. Neither I nor any of my family or close associates has any plans to seek planning permission for any multi house residential or commercial development 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.
I have no idea whether the electorate will use their democratic right on Thursday to really make a statement about all of this or will simply slip into inertia and put a cross in the boxes they always have. But whatever happens you will always be remembered as the man that brought together a widespread rural community in a common cause and caused Leigh Sinton Post Office to have to reorder Private Eye for the first time in their history.
If with hindsight you can see why ordinary people are so upset about this perhaps your next Press Release might be more humble and conciliatory rather than indignant and inaccurate (the Police complaint was about Blue Shot not Clay Green). If you do not, and if MHDC continues to sweep this under the carpet, then I despair for our political system and sense of decency.
Yours sincerely
Ian Smith
Co-Chair
Alfrick and Lulsley Residents Group Ltd
Sunday, 5 April 2015
The Councillors' Pledge - MHDC residents want to know who they are voting for
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 handfew 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.
I want to be very clear on something at this point. Contrary to what some people have suggested in replies to our campaign, I am not against development per se and I am not against individuals benefitting from windfall planning gains on land they own. However, I am strongly against inappropriate development and firmly believe anyone seeking, or faced with, a windfall gain from planning simply should not be a district councillor, the two cannot sit together.
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 here, 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 demand 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. This has the support of the Residents' Groups of Alfrick and Lulsley, Clifton upon Teme, Upton upon Severn, Leigh Sinton, Welland and Powick. Candidates from the Independent Group, the Lib Dems and the Green Party have said they will sign up to the Pledge.
The Councillors' 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. Neither I nor any of my family or close associates has any plans to seek planning permission for any multi house residential or commercial development 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 handfew 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.
I want to be very clear on something at this point. Contrary to what some people have suggested in replies to our campaign, I am not against development per se and I am not against individuals benefitting from windfall planning gains on land they own. However, I am strongly against inappropriate development and firmly believe anyone seeking, or faced with, a windfall gain from planning simply should not be a district councillor, the two cannot sit together.
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 here, 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 demand 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. This has the support of the Residents' Groups of Alfrick and Lulsley, Clifton upon Teme, Upton upon Severn, Leigh Sinton, Welland and Powick. Candidates from the Independent Group, the Lib Dems and the Green Party have said they will sign up to the Pledge.
The Councillors' 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. Neither I nor any of my family or close associates has any plans to seek planning permission for any multi house residential or commercial development 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?
Wednesday, 4 February 2015
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 5th 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
Sunday, 1 February 2015
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)