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?

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.

"Boy, I got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals" Butch Cassidy or the Story at Malvern Hills District Council Just Gets Worse

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.

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king; and he would certainly have more vision than Malvern Hills District Council

It is now a couple of months since villagers from Alfrick & Lulsley, supported by residents of Clifton, Upton and Welland, crammed into the planning committee meeting room at Malvern Hills District Council to listen to the outcome of the Clay Green Farm planning application.

The application by Greenlight Developments Ltd, to build 21 houses on the land owned by Council leader David Hughes, was rejected. That decision needed several remarkable things to happen. Some independent thinking Councillors stood up against the scheme and put forward some excellent arguments. That included some Councillors rebelling against the pressure put on them to vote on party political grounds.

The pressure and publicity brought about by the Residents' Group certainly seemed to pay off. Despite being rather patronisingly dismissed as well meaning trouble makers by MHDC's internal Counsel; and being accused by Greellight of carrying out unjustified smear campaigns, it would be difficult to say the glare of publicity we created did not have a significant impact.

Without that glare of publicity, and the challenge to prove independence by voting against the scheme, why else would the Chair of the meeting, hostile to the objections (and objectors) throughout the whole process suddenly have the first hand up supporting rejection? At that stage, of course, we would take any reason for rejection even if it was self motivated political ambition by someone who we believed (supported by learned Counsel's opinion) should not even have been chairing the meeting.

What was fascinating about the process was the completely unintentional outcome of Councillor Hughes' actions. Quote inadvertently he brought together the community. No, he did more than that, he brought together several communities. Whilst the ideas of the "Big Society" may have gone a bit quiet recently, the universal outrage at the behaviour of a hand few of Councillors, DH included, united not only the villagers of Alfrick and Lulsley, but also those of Clifton, Welland and Upton. I don't think anything in recent years has mobilised such a movement from normally quiet spoken rural residents. Not in his wildest dreams could Councillor Hughes have known he would be the reason for the circulation figures of Private Eye in a few quiet villages in Worcestershire to race up to the levels normally expected of The National Trust Magazine and The Shooting Times.

What probably came as a shock to the residents (it certainly did to me) was two particular aspects of this:

1. That the formal rules of conduct in local Government are not fit for purpose. To the average voter, the fact that District Councillors could remain in post whilst pursuing major planning schemes on land owned by themselves or their close associates, and vote on schemes backed by development companies which whom they have a business relationship, was wrong. That some of those Councillors think there was nothing wrong with this, and MHDC seem to agree with them on this, just proves that the system is not fit for purpose. Relying on the technicalities of when a ODI is not a DPI, and is disclosable or not misses the point. Whatever the outcome of the current Police investigation, the voters think this was wrong. I suspect voters would have assumed a higher standard of moral decency amongst DCs. (And please have some sympathy for the Police in the current situation. Short staffed they have allocated a commendable amount of time and resource to investigating what our Counsel has said are actions that have broken the law in respect of the voting on Blue Shot Meadow. A short staffed Police service must have a water tight case to send it to a similarly short staffed Crown Prosecution Service given they will not process anything for 12 months. If this case does not progress, please don't assume that means that there was no wrong doing, just that it cannot be progressed. The Police have not yet reached any conclusions and recent comment in the Press is simply that, the Council Leader's personal comment or PR and not any comment from the Police).

2. I think voters would have assumed that their District Councillors would vote on planning applications purely on the individual merits of the scheme in question and in doing so would wholeheartedly represent the clear views of the residents who elected them. I don't think they realised how much influence party politics has on individual planning issues when the political make up of the committee becomes of crucial importance.

The reaction of the politicians (local and national), and MHDC was along the lines of "You voted us in so you chose us. Your control is at the ballot box." Of course, ultimately this is correct. Given the controversy which the Clay Green Farm plans caused in Alfrick, Councillor Hughes has certainly hung his colours to the mast by stating that he will be standing again for re-election. (Well, no one could accuse him of being over sensitive!).

I have probably been a "lazy" voter in terms of local elections and I wonder if the same is true of others. I have tended to vote according to my national political party leanings rather than really finding out something about those that are standing locally.

This needs to change if we are going to get local politicians who are prepared to operate at a standard of independence and behaviour that is much higher than the weak rules that currently govern them and thereby get closer to what voters would expect of them. We deserve to know a bit more about them beyond the obvious easy soundbites about fighting for more bus services, bin collections, play areas, broadband and so on.

The debacle of the last couple of years at MHDC, and the contempt in which the Council and its officers are held by a large proportion of residents, would have been avoided if Councillors had been asked to pledge just three simple key points, answered honestly, and if they had then abided by that pledge. The Residents' Groups are therefore going to ask anyone standing for a Councillor's seat on MHDC in the May 2015 elections to commit to this pledge - if they don't then we suggest residents challenge their local candidates as to why they will not sign up to it - and then vote accordingly.

The Councillor's Pledge.

I hereby confirm that:

1. I will always put forward and support the views of the residents of the Ward I represent in preference to taking a party political line on contentious issues.

2. I do not have any plans, nor do any members of my family or close associates, to seek planning permission for any multi house development schemes on land we own.

3. If the situation in point 2 changes during my period of office, I will resign immediately as I recognise that voters will view this as a serious conflict of interest with my role as a Councillor.

It isn't that complicated. If someone wants to act as a District Councillor, and restore the trust in that role and in MHDC, why wouldn't they agree to this?

3 chaps, 2 Morgans, 6 wreaths, 1 plaque, a cemetery & an important journey to mark a WW1 centenary

On Thursday 30th October 2014, I will be setting out from Gheluvelt Park in Worcester in my beloved Morgan Plus 4 (Molly) with my old school chum Nigel Bradford and his friend Neil Styles in Nigel's 4/4 Four Seater (Gladys). The story behind our journey to honour the courage and sacrifice of the men who fought in the First World War is given in the beautiful piece written by Nigel at the end of the blog below.

We are honoured to be taking wreaths on behalf of various Worcestershire organisations that we will be representing on Friday 31st October in Gheluvelt: the Old Malvernians (former pupils of Malvern College that Nigel and Neil attended), the Old Vigornians (the former pupils of King's School Worcester, my old school), the people of Worcester City, the Morgan Motor Company, the Worcestershire Cricket Club, and, of course, the Worcestershire Regiment.

A number of Old Vigornians will be attended a service of dedication in St George's Church Ypres, where a plaque to commemorate the OV's who perished in the war will be unveiled and I will be reading a list of their names as part of the ceremony.

On our way home, we are going to visit the cemetery in Contay, France. This is where my wife Lit's great great uncle, Jonathan Tombs is buried. Lit wrote a lovely piece on Jonathan in her blog here Lit's blogpost on WW1 and Jonathan Tombs. With it being so difficult for Lit to travel that far, I am going to visit his grave for her. Jonathan died in October 1916, having travelled to France from Canada (via England) as part of the Canadian First Pioneer Battalion. Originally from a farm in Edwyn Ralph in Herefordshire, Jonathan was one of 29,029 Canadian casualties during the Battle of the Somme, lost in the fight for a 6 km stretch of mud.

The story behind the trip written by Nigel Bradford RD

There's a Park in Worcester called Gheluvelt. Growing up I played on its swings and enormous slide, paddled in its pool, fed its ducks, rode on its miniature steam trains and fancied myself to be Tony Jacklin on its putting green. In short, it was a child's paradise. 

But where did its name come from? Some might imagine the name to be taken from another more famous pleasure grounds, like Tivoli, Belle Vue, or Vauxhall. To some, even to this day, the name is too exotic, or too foreign, and they still refer to it with splendid Worcester cussedness as Barbourne Park.

The clues come from the smart little houses built along the park's northern side. These are homes for ex soldiers, some built in memory of a fallen son of a privileged  family. A poignant reminder that combat does not recognise such privilege. Then there is the main gate to the park itself. A splendid red brick archway with wrought iron gates painted in the Faithful City's red and black and bearing its Arms, but on that brickwork are two terracotta wreaths. They are not laurel wreaths of victory, but wreaths of mourning, so this is no triumphal archway. 

Over the years I slowly became aware of what and where Gheluvelt is. That it is a small village on the Menin Road, just to the east of Ypres. Now those are names that people from all over the country have heard of, names that signify courage, sacrifice, mud, bullets and Hell on Earth. Clearly not names you might associate with a pleasure park.

As this centenary year of the start of the Great War progresses, much will be made of how Britain was swept along in enthusiasm for war, to teach the the Kaiser a lesson. How men flocked to volunteer to fight for King and Country. How everyone said it would be all over by Christmas. Indeed one famous Worcestershire company, Morgan Motors, who had just opened a brand new factory in Malvern, announced that all its employees who rallied to the colours, would have their jobs kept open for their return at the end of "the present crisis". We will be reminded of how the British Expeditionary Force advanced towards Germany through Belgium. Then how they were forced to retreat in ignominy through towns that had previously welcomed them as the Heroes that had come to save them from the Hun.

All this was to come to an end, in the First Battle of Ypres, at a little place called Gheluvelt. 

It was the morning of the 31st of October, and the 400 men of the 2nd Battalion of the Worcestershire Regiment were resting in the cover of a polygon shaped wood a few miles to the northwest of Ypres. They were dirty and tired. Concern was growing, they had been ordered to stop. Other British units were continuing to retreat. Words were spoken, some in jest but nonetheless expressing resentment at the men who continued towards the coast. Then an order came that they were to move rapidly a few miles to the south and turn to face the enemy advancing to Ypres along the Menin Road. A battalion of the South Wales Borderers had slowed the German advance and this was the chance to stop it. The Worcesters left behind their packs and moved swiftly accross the ploughed fields to their new position. They halted, lined up two deep across the road fixed bayonets and in a magnificent display of Worcester cussedness, charged.  All the frustrations and anger of weeks of retreat was vented on the Germans, who fell back and retreated as the foul mouthed fury of the Worcesters wreaked terrible slaughter in the German ranks. 

The fighting was quickly over, the Germans had fallen back and the men of Wales and Herefordshire greeted the Worcesters with cries of "what kept you?". And together they took up defensive positions in the grounds of Gheluvelt Chateau. The Germans had been stopped and the Kaiser did not have his dinner in Ypres that evening as his Generals had promised him he would.

The First Battle of Ypres, as it came to be known, went on for days, until soldiers of both armies started to dig trenches. These trenches would be occupied for four more years as the Great War developed into the bloody stalemate of our collective memory. Ypres never fell to the Germans, though the little village of Gheluvelt did and it remained behind the German lines until the end of the war. 

After the war, the City of Worcester decided to dedicate the little park in the North of the city to the memory of the Fallen of the Worcestershire regiment. It was to be a place of peace and contemplation, but also a place for children to play and enjoy. The little houses were built for veterans and these are occupied by men from later conflicts to this day. But over the years the meaning of the name of the park was all but forgotten. Then a new War Memorial was built in a conspicuous corner of the Park. This stands in stark contrast to the peaceful idyll originally created for the Park. But it has served to remind people of the horrors of war and has  become a focus of the City's Remembrance each year on the anniversary of the battle.  


This year will see the centenary of the battle. Of course all who fought in the Great War have passed on. But I felt something special should be done to commemorate and remember the Worcesters and their finest hour. 

So two Morgans, built in that Malvern factory that is also celebrating it's centenary this year, are going to drive from Gheluvelt Park to Gheluvelt itself, arriving 100 years to the minute after the Worcesters were asked, "What kept you?". (The cars themselves would not have been thought too unusual by those soldiers all those years ago. They are fine examples of that Worcestershire cussedness. Why change the basic design of a car if it works in the first place?). We will lay wreathes from the Regiment, Morgan Motors and other County organisations that existed 100 years ago. Then we will do what the Kaiser failed to do, have dinner in Ypres.  But only after commemorating a Memorial Plaque to St George's Church on behalf of the King's School Worcester and attending the playing of Last Post at the  Menin Gate. 
 
We will return the next day. Our journey will take in a family grave and it is hoped that we will bring a sandbag of soil back from the grounds of the chateau to be scattered in the park.