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
No comments:
Post a Comment