The grubby Mendip District Council Planning Board has GRANTED PERMISSION for the Sandys Hill Lane development.
At Wednesday night's virtual meeting, our Co-Founder Andrew Pope spoke up on behalf of the many Frome residents and organisations who opposed the development.
It is reported by FromeNubNews here and on SomersetLive here. Local Democracy Reporter @DanielMumby also live-tweeted from the meeting.
Co-Founder of Somerset Independents, Denise Wyatt, says:
"I observed this shameful meeting.
Despite the Council officers claiming in response to our representations that the Planning Board was 'apolitical', and that the identity of the applicants was not relevant, the vote to approve went along party lines, with all Tory councillors voting for the development, as well as Liberal Democrat members of the Cabinet.
The applicants included Tory Councillor Philip Ham, who is also Chair of Mendip's 'Scrutiny' Committee. Not much 'Scrutiny' going on there, from what Somerset Independents has seen!
Not a single Tory Councillor owned up to being friends with Councillor Ham, despite being given explicit and repeated opportunities during the meeting. When the vote was taken to refuse the development, the Vice-Chair Tory Councillor Nigel Hewitt-Cooper had taken the Chair from Councillor Damon Hooton. Hewitt-Cooper used his casting vote to back his Tory friend.
An honourable Chair would have used the vote to refuse the application. But not Nigel Hewitt-Cooper. He chose to stop the refusal using the casting vote and then to approve it!
Members of the public will not think what happened was a coincidence.
If you don't believe us, you can watch the recording of the meeting.
Mendip's grubby Planning set-up treats members of the public with disdain. I know, because I've spoken at the meeting and was promised a written response. The councillors at Mendip lack the leadership to even come up with a response - instead, after two months of chasing, I got a lame letter from an officer saying that my request for greater public involvement had been 'noted'.
This attitude towards the public pervades across Mendip District Council.
It's Frome residents and their families, wildlife, green fields and workers that will suffer.
Meanwhile, brownfield and derelict Saxonvale goes undeveloped and the proposals appear desperately and possibly, even deliberately, unpopular."
---
UPDATE (12/7/20): The date has been set for the second Planning Board of Mendip District Council - 22nd July, for the Sandys Hill Lane application 2019/1671/OTS.
Meanwhile, an update has been made to the Saxonvale proposals and even MORE people are objecting to this disastrous development. We ask - how can Mendip District Council have bungled this situation so badly?
The problems will delay Saxonvale even longer - as green fields are put at risk and the Council continues to receive no income from this site in its "Commercial Investment" - yes, that's right, an "investment" of public money that yields zero income - not much of an investment, is it? But that's another issue...
Now more people and organisations have lodged objections to the application.
More people and organisations have noticed the links between Conservative Councillor Philip Ham and this flawed application. This has included Frome Chamber of Commerce.
Somerset Independents Leader Andrew Pope has submitted the following objection on behalf of Somerset Independents, based on feedback from residents:
"1. The planning process relating to this issue, and actual/perceived
conflicts of interest of councillors, especially those in the
Conservative and Liberal Democrat political groups, and including those
on the Planning Board, those who sit on the Phoenix Board and those who
served with Councillor Ham (one of the applicants) in the Cabinet. This
includes behaviour at the Planning Board and potential breaches of the
Council's Code of Conduct and the Nolan Principles (Seven Principles of
Public Life) which apply to all councillors. Other residents have
observed Councillor Ham's involvement in their objections, and the
conflict of interest in his business and councillor roles.
2. The delay of development at Saxonvale - a brownfield site, which could alleviate housing shortages without building on green fields, but which remains undeveloped despite promises after promises from the previous Conservative Administration and the current Liberal Democrat Minority Administration. Saxonvale should be prioritised over this application, as it is brownfield.
3. The potential for the employment use to be a "trojan horse" for housing development, as stated by Frome Chamber of Commerce in their objection letter.
4. The lack of adequate access, as commented by residents and by councillors on the Planning Boardt.
5. Disconnection with the town centre
6. Traffic and road safety problems, which are already there - as commented by residents and by councillors and as documented in the local media.
7. I and many other residents oppose development on green fields, as in Objection Note 2. This is shown in the many objections from residents and this issue has been discussed in correspondence I have had with other councillors and residents.
8. I believe that this application goes against national planning policy, local planning policy and the Frome Neighbourhood Plan. This is despite assurances to me by an officer of the Town Council that the application does respect the Neighbourhood Plan. It is interesting that the Town Council did not object, so far, to this application - and all the while, Saxonvale goes undeveloped. Why?"
2. The delay of development at Saxonvale - a brownfield site, which could alleviate housing shortages without building on green fields, but which remains undeveloped despite promises after promises from the previous Conservative Administration and the current Liberal Democrat Minority Administration. Saxonvale should be prioritised over this application, as it is brownfield.
3. The potential for the employment use to be a "trojan horse" for housing development, as stated by Frome Chamber of Commerce in their objection letter.
4. The lack of adequate access, as commented by residents and by councillors on the Planning Boardt.
5. Disconnection with the town centre
6. Traffic and road safety problems, which are already there - as commented by residents and by councillors and as documented in the local media.
7. I and many other residents oppose development on green fields, as in Objection Note 2. This is shown in the many objections from residents and this issue has been discussed in correspondence I have had with other councillors and residents.
8. I believe that this application goes against national planning policy, local planning policy and the Frome Neighbourhood Plan. This is despite assurances to me by an officer of the Town Council that the application does respect the Neighbourhood Plan. It is interesting that the Town Council did not object, so far, to this application - and all the while, Saxonvale goes undeveloped. Why?"
---
Members of Somerset Independents have observed and participated in several Planning Board meetings of Mendip District Council.
An issue that has frequently come up in planning applications, and will come up again and again when we are speaking with residents, is:
Where should homes be built in Frome?
AND
Where should they not be built in Frome?
On the whole, residents do not want green fields around Frome to be built upon. They would prefer that brownfield sites be used, such as at Saxonvale - also in Frome.
But Saxonvale lies derelict. WHY? (We will explore that issue another time...)
One such planning application
"2019/1671/OTS | Outline planning application (all matters are reserved apart from access and the main distributor road) comprising a mixed use development at land North & South of Sandys Hill Lane, Frome..."
was considered at a totally botched "virtual" Planning Board in June 2020. This was not the first botched meeting, it has to be said, but just another one.
An application came to the Board in relation to a piece of land that is associated with sitting Mendip Conservative Councillor Philip Ham.
Councillor Ham is the former Cabinet Member for Transformation. He had that role until the Tories lost political control of the Council in May 2019. He is now "Chair of the Scrutiny Board" and his register of interests can be seen on the Council website.
Councillor Ham and his business associates' development was proposing to make a great deal of money from a large development on Ham's land to the West of Frome.
From the Council's own planning website, the documents show there had been an omission in the application, because the first application form did not show that a councillor was involved.
So another application form was submitted, with this accidental/deliberate (please delete as required - we will not comment) omission resolved to show that a councillor was involved. We would like to know how this happened - please tell us if you know - we will be asking Councillor Ham directly.
The planning application was eventually deferred, but not refused, by the Liberal Democrat*, Green and Conservative councillors on the
Council's Planning Board. There was no truly "Independent" councillor* - and there appears to be no replacement to the councillor who called himself "Independent" but was not.
There was no formal recorded vote on the application at this meeting. But the application was,
eventually, deferred to allow the applicants including Councillor Ham to reconsider.
None of these Conservative councillors stood down from the Board due to any conflict of interest, despite being in the same political group as Councillor Ham, and the same political party, and they all voted. How could Mendip District Council allow this? But it did.
During the meeting, two members of the Cabinet - Councillor Shearer and Councillor Wyke - made reference to the need to build housing.
As you will see from the voting record that we have obtained by viewing the meeting, all of Councillor Ham's Conservative Councillor
colleagues on the Planning Board voted for the application to not
be deferred. Clearly they wanted it to be approved, because if the deferment was defeated, the other option for councillors was to approve it.
None of these Conservative councillors stood down from the Board due to any conflict of interest, despite being in the same political group as Councillor Ham, and the same political party, and they all voted. How could Mendip District Council allow this? But it did.
Do you think this is right? Does it "smell" right? Would it "look right to the man on the Clapham omnibus"? We don't think so, but if you disagree, please tell us why.
So
in the interests of openness and transparency, here is who voted for
what. We took careful note of it and you can verify it by watching the
Council's own recording.
To recap - Councillors were voting on whether to defer the application (not to refuse it), to seek further
information from the applicant (let's not forget, which includes
Conservative Councillor Philip Ham):
Councillor Eve Berry (Conservative) - Against deferral
Councillor Peter Goater (Liberal Democrat member of the Cabinet) - Against deferral
Councillor Francis Hayden (Green) - For deferral
Councillor Nigel Hewitt-Cooper (Conservative) - Against deferral
Councillor Edric Hobbs (he was "Independent" but since the meeting has joined the Liberal Democrats*) - For deferral
Councillor Helen Kay (Green) - For deferral
Councillor Lindsay MacDougall (Green) - For deferral
Councillor Matt Martin (Liberal Democrat) - For deferral
Councillor Mike Pullin (Conservative) - Against deferral
Councillor Heather Shearer (Liberal Democrat member of the Cabinet) - Against deferral
Councillor Laura Waters (Liberal Democrat) - For deferral
Councillor Ros Wyke (Liberal Democrat member of the Cabinet) - Abstained
Councillor Damon Hooton - did not vote as he had removed himself from the meeting, due to a conflict of interests (see Note ** below).
Totals - 12 councillors voted, 6 For deferral, 5 Against deferral (All Conservative or Liberal Democrat members of the Cabinet), 1 abstention
The deferment was carried, but no thanks to the Conservatives or Lib Dem Cabinet members.
You can see that the
Conservative councillors on the Planning Board all voted against
deferring the application.
Would you agree that this voting record is either highly suspicious and/or a remarkable coincidence?
And it wasn't just Conservative councillors that opposed deferral...
All full members
of the Liberal Democrat Cabinet (except for the Leader of the Council)
were also against deferral - all the while, brownfield land at Saxonvale goes undeveloped.Why? (Again - we will explore this another time).
Why were members of the Cabinet on the Planning Board?
Because unusually and in Somerset Independents' wide experience of planning committees in England, worryingly and amazingly
for a council planning committee, members of the Cabinet - that is, the
Executive members that make decisions of the Council - are allowed to
sit on the Planning Board.
The Council's Constitution allows it. Mendip Council's Constitution also allows councillors of the same Party as a Councillor who owns land that is part of an application, to sit and vote on the application WITHOUT DECLARING A PREJUDICIAL INTEREST!
Do you think this is right, or is it a recipe for corruption, as has happened at the heart of the Conservative Government with Robert Jenrick in the Westferry scandal?
Somerset Independents does not believe that party politics has any place in local councils, because Westminster parties put themselves before local residents.
Many
other councils do not allow Cabinet members on Planning committees, because it can bring a conflict of
interest between the interests of the Executive (Cabinet) and proper due process
of the planning committee.
And we saw this conflict of interest in action at this Planning Board.
So why haven't they ensured that brownfield land is built upon, instead of green fields as with this development?
We will explore this another time.
Serious questions remain about why the Mendip Constitution allows decisions to be made in this way.
And Somerset Independents maintains that no green fields should be built upon until all brownfield sites are used.
What do you think?
Tell us by contacting us.
---
Notes:
* Councillor Edric Hobbs claims to have been an "Independent" councillor but was already working with the Liberal Democrats in the Cabinet. Since that meeting, he has actually joined the Liberal Democrats.
** Councillor Damon Hooton is normally the Chair of the Planning Board. He is also a ward
councillor for one of the wards affected by this proposed development.
He is also an employee of Sainsbury's, as stated in his Register of
Interests. Councillor Hooton withdrew from the Planning Board for this
item, handing the Chair to the Vice-Chair, Conservative Councillor Nigel
Hewitt-Cooper.