In my last post. I highlighted the institutional unethical corruption and self interest which appears to have become endemic at Malvern Hills District Council with neither Councillors or the Monitoring Officer being able to recognise inappropriate behaviour and conflicts of interest.
I was outraged because I was total shocked that people holding themselves out to act in public office could behave in such a way. Since posting the blog I have come to the sad realisation that perhaps I am just a naive, idealistic fool. It would appear that the reason neither Councillors or Council Officers bat an eyelid at such things is that, far from being the outrageous exception that should shock, they are the accepted norm.
The situation is actually far worse than I had thought. Apart from the highly controversial schemes in Clifton for 48 houses (owned by Councillor Barbara Williams's partner - Councillor B and Plan B in the previous blog) which has got approval and the Clay Green Farm plan for 23 houses in Alfrick (owned by Councillor David Hughes), there is another property developing councillor who I did not know about. Councillor Roger Cousins has had a plan for 50 houses passed in Welland and is now seeking permission for another 30 (well you wouldn't want to waste the opportunity to make hay whilst the sun shines would you?).
Neither had I understood all of the Machaivelian scheming that had taken place in Clifton long before the Blue Shot Meadow scheme was approved (which readers will recall was for the benefit of Councillor Williams's partner, promoted by Greenlight Developments Ltd who have an option over Councillor Hughes's land in Alfrick; and which Councillor Hughes voted through with his casting vote having not declared an interest with Greenlight - do try and keep up Dear Reader).
It turns out Councillor Barbara Williams owns a house that adjoins a potential development site called Steps Farm which came up for planning some time before Blue Shot Meadow. The plans for her partner's site at Blue Shot Meadow were not in the open at that point, nor were they disclosed. She did not disclose her interest in the house or the potential impact of the development on it. She lobbied and voted against Steps Farm, having not excluded herself & having kept quiet about her house and her partners' plans. I leave my increasingly wise and cynical readers to make their own minds up as to whether ensuring Clifton's housing needs were not supplied by the Steps Farm development thus sustaining the need for Blue Shot Meadow to fulfil might have been somewhere in her mind. You might think that but I couldn't possibly comment.
So three of the Councillors, who have been shaping the planning landscape for MHDC have, between them, planning gains on land for 151 houses. This represents a huge amount of money. It was not possible for them to have taken part in any discussion, strategy planning, or individual planning decisions without their judgement being tainted and coloured by the massive personal gains at stake for them. Not voting on their own schemes was clearly not enough, they should not have been involved in anything whatsoever to do with the planning process. The natural conclusion of any reasonable person must be that they should not have been councillors at all.
So one asks, why are they councillors? Did they all have a burning desire to change the local world for the good? Is the Williams/Cousins/Hughes combination some kind of evangelical dream ticket that was like having Ghandi/Mandela/JFK in West Worcestershire righting wrongs and bringing a better standard of life to all of their constituents? Was it purely coincidence that 3 of this small number of people running local politics and planning policy just happened to have the potential to change their own personal financial circumstances beyond recognition (an option which must be quite attractive when one of them runs and owns a company which is insolvent to the tune of £3,555 according to the last set of published accounts)? What are the chances of having 3 people all with that kind of huge interest in the outcome of the planning process turning up in any other organisation in the area?
Perhaps Butch Cassidy, the man with more vision than those with bifocals around him, would suggest that this is not mere coincidence. He might think their motives had more to do with personal gain than the greater good of the area.
The other aspect that shocked me in the lead up to the planning meeting on January 7th was the emphasis people were putting on the political make up on the planning committee. People were concerned that Councillors would vote according to their political affiliations. I had been happily floating along in my world where I thought councillors would vote on the merits of an application not on which party they belonged to or the applicant belonged to. If it was a ridiculous site for 23 houses, down a narrow lane with appalling access, with clear evidence of rare bats that have not been properly monitored, in a village with no facilities and woeful broadband, and not the sort of houses the parish council survey demonstrated the village needs and wants - people might vote on the facts. Oh poor, naive me, what a fool!
Far from being a "non issue" the political bias on the Northern Area committee appears to have been one of the factors which spooked them into a rapid change of direction on January 7th. Having been robustly careering towards pushing Clay Green Farm through during that day and denying concerns of political bias, the unwanted glare of some publicity on their scheming and plotting (thank you Phil Mackie, Peter John and BBC Hereford and Worcester amongst others) the committee decided to defer the plans to the main committee on Feb 5th. Reason, for a more balanced political decision!
We now have to hope that those Councillors who are independent of thought and deed, irrespective of their political affiliations, will stand up to the corruption and self interest that appears to have become the accepted norm in MHDC. I hope they are given the support by their colleagues to vote against Clay Green Farm on its own merits (or total lack of them) and deny Councillor Hughes and Greenlight the windfall that would come at the cost of local democracy and any semblance of respect for the Council. Hopefully the villagers of Alfrick, Lulsley and other villages which are being blighted by this rotten greed will be there en masse to see that defeat.
I'm not entirely convinced that they had bifocals at the time of the Wild West but that won't stop me quoting from my favourite film. But it is time for MHDC to open their eyes and to recognise the cancer within its midst and completely change the way councillors are selected, vetted and then monitored. The current set up and accepted behaviours has totally devalued the good work that the genuine councillors undertake. Instead of providing Councillors with funds to produce self promotional videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6uwqDKuoxA) councillors should not be selected if they have plans to develop their land and must resign the moment decide to do so. They should be heavily fined for delaying such a resignation.
And talking of that film, what were they thinking? Are they really that thick skinned? 3 of the 4 presenters are the very councillors abusing their positions. Become a District Councillor - "it really is very rewarding" - isn't it just.
No comments:
Post a Comment