Agenda item

The Chairman proposed scheduling a pre-budget briefing before the next Scrutiny meeting on 31 January. Members’ availability would be canvassed in the coming week.

            The meeting ended at 9.00pm. 

PUBLIC SPEAKING

Statement of Simon Havers (read by the Chairman)

Mr Havers said there were three elements that needed to be addressed by the Scrutiny Committee following approval of the Stansted Airport planning application to increase passenger numbers. There was a need for a review to restore public confidence following poor public engagement in the lead up to the application; the scope of the review was to be as broad as possible but with specific reference to the Stansted Airport application to ensure all involved in the process were held to account; and in terms of timing, the review should begin without delay.

Statement of Debbie Bryce (read by the Chairman)

Ms Bryce said she wanted to make Scrutiny aware that she had been frustrated when trying to relay information to Planning Committee members in the period leading up to the determination of the Stansted Airport application. The issues related to ancillary development at Stansted Airport and a Freedom of Information request for minutes of meetings between UDC and the airport operator. She believed that the Council had not served the public interest in this matter.

Statement of Ray Woodcock

Mr Woodcock spoke in relation to the Stansted Airport application. He said he was aware of at least three people who were denied the opportunity to speak during the public speaking sessions and were told that all of the time had been allocated, even though all three sessions ended early. He added that the issue of air pollution was not properly addressed during the planning process. He believed that these issues justified an investigation into the way major planning applications were handled by UDC.

Statement of Robert Beer

Mr Beer said the decision to approve the Stansted Airport application had left the electorate with little faith in the democratic process. He said officer reports were biased and in favour of the applicant, and he criticised the reasoning of members who voted in favour of approval. He said the scrutiny review should include specific reference to the decision made by the Planning Committee on 14 November, and, as the application was still “live”, it was the ideal time to scrutinise the decision. He said residents deserved greater transparency and accountability from their council.

Statement of Brian Ross

 Mr Ross said the recent Stansted Airport planning application had become politicised and this would lead to Scrutiny restricting the scope of any investigation, rather than examining the process from start to finish. It was necessary for an independent and thorough review into the process, in order to restore public trust, develop best practice and to ensure no malpractice had occurred. He urged the Committee to establish an independent review to examine all aspects of how major planning applications were handled at UDC.

Statement of Colin Day

Mr Day said officers and councillors at UDC were inadequately experienced and trained to deal with major planning applications, such as the Stansted Airport application to increase passenger numbers. Instead, this should have been determined by the Secretary of State, who did have the required expertise. He said the volume of documentation and the skills required to cross examine experts were beyond the capabilities of most district councillors. He urged the Committee to scrutinise the Stansted Airport decision and to appoint an independent scrutineer to carry out the review.

Statement of Maggie Sutton

Ms Sutton asked the Council to consider those people who would be adversely affected by the recently approved Stansted Airport application.  She said it would have a negative impact on their quality of life. There were questions left unanswered regarding the application due to the Council’s lack of expertise in major planning matters. She said it would have been more appropriate to have had the application determined by central government.  

Statement of Neil Reeve

Mr Reeve said due process was not followed during the determination of the Stansted Airport application. He said the non-Conservative planning members had clearly read the application papers, whilst he highlighted the lack of input of Conservative members and questioned whether they had been politically instructed to support the application. He said it was a disgrace that every parish and town council in the district had objected to the application, and yet Conservative councillors proceeded to approve the application. He urged the Committee to conduct an investigation into this process.