BEVA's complaint to the Chief Executive at DBC

Following the disastrous outcome of the planning meeting which ignored all the input from us over the last two years, we are now focussing on two approaches.  

One is to raise a complaint.  We have already done so regarding the conduct of the meeting, and this reproduced below.  We are currently preparing a more detailed critique of the entire process and seeking other ways that we can raise our concerns about the issue.

The other is to continue to press for closure of the lanes. In this we have the support of our HCC councillor, Richard Roberts.

We press on.  

Ms Sally Marshall,
Chief Executive, Dacorum Borough Council,
The Forum,
Marlowes,
Hemel Hempstead.
HP1 1DN

12 January 2020

Dear Ms Marshall,

Complaint to Chief Executive Dacorum Borough Council

We are writing on behalf of Bourne End Village Association (BEVA).

This complaint relates to the conduct of the meeting of the Development Management Committee which took place on 28^th November 2019. This meeting was totally about the planning application for the area known as LA3.

At the time of writing there are no minutes publicly available.

Context

The proposal to develop the area of land known as LA3 has been long standing.  When the Master Plan was produced the village of Bourne End did not raise an objection, being mindful of the need for housing, its proposed integration and an assumption that appropriate national and local policies would be followed.

The village responded to the consultation process produced by the developers.  We believe our responses were clear and referred to matters of national, county and local policy. These responses were made to both the developers and DBC.
In particular this relates to the government ‘Policy for traveller sites 2015’.
 
The officer report and the meeting were the opportunities to demonstrate these matters were considered and followed. Neither the formal application plans nor the officer’s report reflected any of these policy matters.

The officer report

The report included objections from various parties as appendices. However, as a matter of course, one would expect any overarching policy to be referenced in the officer’s report. With respect to the government ‘Policy for traveller sites 2015’ there is no mention. Without that consideration, proper and practical inclusion of the traveller site within the rest of LA3 is not achieved.

Reference in the report is made to compliance with CS22 and the Master Plan.  At best this is disingenuous since integration of one piece of land to another is not the same as including the people to that land and its facilities. This was misleading to the Development Control Committee as was reference only to the design of the traveller site rather than reference to the overarching policy.

The barring of our elected representative from speaking

Cllr Gbola Adeleke who was to speak on behalf of Bourne End Village Association was barred from speaking.  He was informed of this by James Doe late on 26^th November. As a result he prepared a written statement which was included in the report appendices.  This was only circulated as part of the appendices shortly before the meeting. The complete appendices document was 30 pages long.

Subsequent to the meeting BEVA queried the legitimacy of barring our representative. We were informed that to allow him to speak would have been contrary to the Rules and Procedures.  We have a number of comments to make on this.

1.       The rules do not disbar a councillor speaking on behalf of their constituents.

2.       Discretion is given to the chair of the meeting over who should speak.

3.       Given the size of the development and the potential impact on the surrounding area, particularly Bourne End, failing to give an adequate hearing to the elected representative is severely undermining the democratic process.

The effect of this was that the community most impacted on by the development did not have a sound hearing.

Of course, we understand that any councillor speaking on any development in Dacorum does not make sense.  However where a development directly impacts on a ward, other than the development ward itself, speaking should be appropriate and allowed. 

Direction by the chair

a)      At one point, the chair spoke of her concern regarding interruptions from members of the audience.  We understand the need for this.

The chair went on to draw on her experience as part of Herts County Council responsible at one time for travellers. The message was that travellers wanted to be able to get to facilities but wished to remain separate. The emphasis was more on separation than inclusion, as it was in the past.  This intervention was inappropriate

·         It was based on her past experience and gave her view an importance that it should not have had in this context

·         It denied the new policy (2015 planning for traveller sites) which requires inclusion as part of a government drive to overcome social tensions.

·         There was no opportunity to comment

·         The intervention undermined the chair’s neutrality.

b)      The meeting was adjourned whilst consideration was given to a proposal from the DCC to have routine vehicle access from the traveller site into LA3 and occasional controlled access from Chaulden Lane.  The matter is of considerable importance to the existing settled community and the travellers. Following the decision that this was a material amendment, the chair, in the interests of resolution gave the developers the option of accepting this material amendment as a condition.  Following a brief consideration by the developers, they indicated that they would only accept it as a reserved matter.

The chair then put the meeting to a vote. Given the significance of the above issue a deferral to consider the proposal would have been an alternative appropriate outcome.

Issues before the meeting

As you will be aware from prior communication from BEVA, it appears that pressure was put on a member of the DCC to support the application. This member had legitimately raised, as a ward councillor, the question of policy application to the traveller site with officers.
Such pressure undermines a transparent hearing and decision by members of the DCC.

Expected outcomes of this complaint

1.       We ask and expect these matters to be investigated and confirmed.

2.       We ask that the relevant part of the overall decision (Traveller site access) should be amended via one mechanism or another to reflect the above policy detail and compliance.

3.       We ask that any relevant points above are noted for other appropriate DCC meetings.

For and on behalf of Bourne End Village Association.
Yours Sincerely,

Ms. C McMurdie,
Chair BEVA,
The Maltings,
Sharpes Lane,
Bourne End,
Hemel Hempstead,
Herts HP1 2RY