Agenda item

To consider the member motion regarding the mishandling of the Local Plan process.

CouncillorIsham presented his motion regarding the mishandling of the Local Plan process. He said there had been a lack of leadership and good governance at the Council and the administration had to be held to account. A further delay to the emerging Local Plan was not an acceptable outcome for the district and yet still no one would take responsibility He urged members to support his censure motion in light of this failure.

Councillor Caton seconded the proposal. He reserved his right to speak.

Councillor Loughlin criticised the process and said it had been shrouded in secrecy.

CouncillorCoote said the Local Plan was not really a local process as the Council was constrained by national legislation and guidance. He said the Administration were doing their utmost to produce a sound plan and local members needed to stick together.

Councillor Fairhurst questioned the governance surrounding the Local Plan and why it had been deemed “unfit” and delayed at such short notice.  He said he trusted the Chairs of LPLG and Scrutiny; the failure was of the Administration as “no one had been at the wheel”.

Councillor Reeve said he was disappointed with the pause although it would allow time to develop policies in respect of infrastructure and the local economy.

Councillor Smith said it was hypocritical of the Residents’ Administration to not take responsibility for the failures of this process, considering their criticism of previous Local Plans. He said the district was exposed to development without a Plan in place and the Government would intervene if appropriate progress was not being made. 

Councillor Pepper said the new Local Plan faced huge challenges in terms of infrastructure and sustainable economic development. However, she had faith that the new planning team would deliver a sound Local Plan.

Councillor Sell asked whether Scrutiny Committee had been misled as the reality of the situation did not mirror reports given at Committee. He also said that he felt “more in the dark” than he had during previous Local Plans. The Council did a lot right but this issue was also demonstrating a lack of leadership from the Administration.

Councillor Evans said no one wanted to see a delay in the process but he had been informed by the recently appointed Local Plan and New Communities Manager that the draft Plan was not ready for the Regulation 18 Consultation stage and therefore the timetable had been paused. He refuted criticism that this represented a failure of governance as he met with officers bi-weekly and had been told that the Plan was on track. The Local Plan process was extremely technical and it was for professional planning officers to quality check proposals. He thanked the Local Plan and New Communities Manager for bringing the issue to the Council’s attention.

Councillor Khan said it was a failure of the Portfolio Holder for Planning and the Local Plan as the delay was due to a lack of strategy and forward planning. He said no one wanted to take responsibility for this failure, which was costing residents dearly.

Councillor Gregory thanked those who had brought this censure motion to Council as there was a need to debate this issue. He said Councillor Evans was a good man but this was about the need for a Local Plan and there had been a failure of governance and due process. In order to make things right, he said LPLG and Scrutiny Committee would work more closely in future, and Cabinet would need to listen to Scrutiny Committee for there to be value in the process. He said he had confidence that Councillor Evans would turn the situation around.

Councillor Caton said a new Local Plan would protect the district against speculative development and another delay to the Regulation 18 Consultation was a failure of governance and leadership.

Councillor Isham was invited to conclude the debate. He said the motion was proportionate and not overly aggressive. There was a need to work together on the Local Plan and constructive criticism was a necessary part of the democratic process.

Councillor Light requested a recorded vote.

The motion of censure was approved with 13 votes for, 12 against and 4 abstentions.

RESOLVED: In response to the Residents for Uttlesford (R4U) Administration’s mishandling of the Uttlesford Local Plan over that past forty-one (41) months since the May 2019 local elections, at which R4U took responsibility for delivering an Uttlesford Local Plan, Council resolves to censure the Administration for its failure to deliver a draft Regulation 18 Local Plan for consultation with the public of the district by an already revised deadline of November 2022. Council calls upon the Leader of Council and the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Stansted Airport, Infrastructure Strategy and the Local Plan to:

1. Explain comprehensively why the Regulation 18 Plan will not be published by the previously committed date in November 2022, and whether there have been internal disagreements about the proposed spatial strategy within the ruling R4U Administration Group.

2. Explain why the public announcement about this delay in the Regulation 18 Local Plan’s public consultation was made through a statement in the press on September 13^th and was not formally agreed via a constitutionally proper, democratic decision-making route in public at a special meeting of the Cabinet, and why the Local Plan Leadership Group was side-lined by the press announcement and the cancellation of its own scheduled meeting.

3. Explain objectively whether the recently announced delay in the start of the Regulation 18 consultation risks yet further delay beyond February 2023 and until after the May 2023 District Council Elections, owing to the statutory pre-election purdah requirements.

4. Declare what steps will be taken by themselves to restore trust and confidence in this Council’s handling of the Local Plan delivery between now and the May 4th 2023 Local Elections to minimise the development free-for-all in our towns, villages and countryside and to allay growing public concern that R4U has lost control of the district’s future.

The meeting was closed at 8.55pm.