Minutes:
(Item 5)
The Mayor opened up to statements from the Council.
Councillor Taylor seconded motion and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Rogers said that he’s like to say we Dacorum conservatives were united in reducing the housing demands being placed on us by the government, he hoped that people understood that, you will later hear from our council leader about our resolve, but he said he wanted to share what their aim was and how they will achieve it. This is a solid proposal, were all agreed that, more new homes are needed, but how many? In December 2019 the manifestos of the Liberal Democrats of Labour and Conservatives all stated a housing target of 300000 new homes each year in England, this was based on population figures from 2014. A little bit of background he said, if they were to use the official 2018 statistics they would project a national housing need of 200000 homes a year, they now know that the population of England fell by 1.4 million last year, so new figures have been found that reduce the total number of houses required to 170000, he said they were trying to point out the practical conservative approach to the number of houses needed in Dacorum. Last December the Government algorithm was reviewed and amended, due to the pressure from resident group from across the country, along with 80 MP’s. The objective was to take the pressure of the south east and balance up northern areas, however Dacorum suffered with figures rising up 10% up to 1023 up from the 922 that were currently consulting on. Since December 2019 we’ve had a general election, we’ve had Brexit and now the pandemic, national figures from Government are 76% higher for Dacorum than they should be. This consultation they have now embarked on is the 1st step, I’d like everyone listening to remember there are 2 further consultations that are planned, and if they looked at the details on the 1st consultation they will see the process. Andrew Williams our council leader along with the rest of us Conservative want to lower the target figure and the best way they can do that is to respond at this 1st stage before the 2nd & 3rd consultations go ahead and not kick the ball into the long grass. The key factor is to encourage everyone as far as possible to partake in the process as early as they possibly can so that they can work with One Voice Alliance, Councillors, Council officers to demonstrate to the planning inspector that they have done everything they can locally and no exceptional circumstances exist for the destruction of the greenbelt, stage 2 is working with London Greenbelt Council, CPRE and MPS to influence nation government, to reduce national figures. Last night in their conservative group, they agreed unanimously to continue their opposition to the loss of greenbelt, they have sympathy, strong sympathy with the motion that has been proposed however I really honestly urge all voting councillors to oppose this motion, let’s get on with to discover what they can practically do to achieve the joint goal of defending the local greenbelt against these national housing targets. I plead to you as I’m never going to give up on this mission.
Councillor Birnie said that the two parties are not too far apart on the underlying object of this motion, they’re all against a massive amount of building in Dacorum, the conservatives have shown by a resolution by passed by the council some time ago and in a subsequent letter to the housing minister that they reject the housing target imposed upon us by central government, because they believe it to be unachievable. The Government itself have said that the greenbelt should not be built upon, unless there are very special reasons for doing so, your conservative councillors do not believe that those special circumstances exist, and they believe that you cannot build 922 dwelling per annum without destroying large swathes of the green belt, however they must recognise that they are a small district council and what our Lim Dems Friends seem to have difficulty in grasping is that they have very little power to refuse the demands of central government, they have been instructed to produce a new local plan within a timetable which is defined by law, if they fail to do so they’re likely to face a situation where developers can start building wherever they like, which is what has happened in Buckinghamshire, therefore they have produced a draft local plan and put it out to public consultation, they are expecting that there will be a large amount of public opposition to parts of the draft, they plan to use this criticism as a further argument against unrealistic building targets set by the housing minister. So it’s when it comes to tactics we disagree with the motion to abandon the consultation at this late stage, we need the evidence of the public opposition to use it against the target, and don’t forget that the process does not end here, this is a draft which will be amended to reflect large scale public objection, and after that it will then go out to another public consultation. He said, Ladies and Gentleman they’re all aware of the havoc that the pandemic has caused across the high street, many shops will never re-open, it’s his belief that much of the retail space will be converted into residential accommodation thus taking some of the pressure of the Greenbelt at the end of this process, at the moment let us not accept the give unrealistic targets but also let us not be dogs in the manager by canning the consultation at this stage. Instead they should be playing the politics astutely and said he cannot support this motion for this reason alone.
Councillor Timmis said she has a lot of sympathy with the motion by Councillor Pringle however as you know they extended the consultation period considerably, with only 4 days to go it’s not realistic to further extend it, she said, I think they need to let people know that this a draft plan, and that is why they are consulting on it as required by the process, the government have insisted on the housing numbers that they’ve got, 1023 that was 922 and they need to know people’s views to be able to act on the, her views as a conservative Cllr and like many of her residents is that they do not support the governments numbers as they are not evidence based and she does not support such extensive use of the greenbelt which can never be replaced. She will put this in her response to the consultation which she feels should go ahead, therefore I will not be supporting this motion.
Councillor England said there is a saying, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging, he said well “ the ball has been kicked in the log grass” councillor Rogers, Councillor Birnie, if we need the evidence as you say, lets re-run the consultation when people can give them the evidence. The whole point of this debate is that they all agree consultation needs to be done, but they are simply saying that if you want to achieve the goal of sending a message to the government then they need to get more engagement than what has currently been reached, you cannot have it both ways, he said he has heard he thinks 3 councillors now try do exactly that, and you can’t do it, what they need to do is re-run this consultation at a time when people can attend meetings and find out what it’s about. They’ve all spent a lot of time of these documents, they’ve done their best to show people what it’s about and it hasn’t worked. It’s been an uncertain time throughout this period of consultation and trying to press ahead just hasn’t worked, the pandemic has been a rough ride for everyone, many local deaths, and lurid headlines and dangerous new variants appearing, and that and the time of year have prevented it from being a proper process at all. In questions tonight the leader acknowledged that engagement activity had stopped due to the pandemic, so if engagement is being stopped in the middle of the consultation, what does that tell you, since the 27th November the Dacorum infection rates had soared and they found themselves in tiers of confusion followed by a peak which was predicted by epidemiologist which has only been reduced by people staying at home unless they were given an appointment for a vaccination, so much has changed, in response to the threat to life which at one point lead to Dacorum going from Covid tier 2 to 4 in as many days, this threat has not been met with measures to safeguard participation in this consultation, the grudging extension first resisted at full council in November, December and then offered in January have made Dacorum look leaden footed even in comparison with the most leaden footed government in recent history, Nor has the fundamental change in the housing numbers the gerrymandering of evidence for what has been proposed been acknowledged via the process by which this this plan is presented, things have changed and they should recognise that for another reason why if they want to put solid evidence forward they need to go back, they need to go back and they need to accept that what learning has been achieved they need more, the point about consultations is this is a regulation 18 which means feedback can be given by residents, the next stage won’t allow feedback, it’s a regulation 19. In the debate earlier at the meetings, he actually asked if there would be a guarantee of another regulation 18 and he would have been prepared to vote in support if there had been, however it was denied, so they’re not going to get another chance at that are they? Extensions have not been enough, they need to recognise that physical exhibitions and through Q&A’s are essential, they need to do these in the summer when people are vaccinated and can go outside. They need to target a good percentage of the adult population there are 120000 adults in Dacorum and so far this has only reached about 4% of them. There should be room to debate the principles of the strategy, we simply haven’t been able to do this over the winter and they need to come back to this, the real problem is safely and effectively reaching the people who are not online, As Cllr Pringle has set out, they are asking people to make trips to libraries which I think are open, and they wouldn’t be making these trips if the consultation period is postponed until the summer, so he said again, we can’t have this both ways, if they want the evidence, if that statement is real then they shouldn’t be afraid of pausing this and coming back to it in the summer.
Councillor Symington said, she is speaking in support of the motion, it started at the wrong time and is continuing through a period where it’s completely inappropriate for them to be consulting with the public. The Covid infection rate has already been discussed only on Monday they had their own prime minister speak to us about how cautious and careful they have to be. So although she accepted not that this consultation has been extended considerably, she disagreed with that, 3 weeks is not considerable and that is all it was extended by, she said it should be halted or extended considerably, this motion proposes they halt it and get the numbers right, she agreed with her conservative colleagues that it is imperative that they get the numbers right and the timing right of this consultation. Looking at the website and accessibility, she had counted and she was sure she hadn’t counted all of them, the front end documents alone amount to 149, and that doesn’t count the sub documents within that, this document online document is not suitable for the vast majority of people, if one of Cllr Pringles resident done it in 9hrs then she commends them, in terms of the other literature that’s gone out and it been well documented that despite a very nice and attractive glossy documents been produced, the dissemination of this has been woeful, in fact she had that day had communication with a resident who had actually received it in Tring. The vast majority of people do not know that this consultation is taking place, it needs to be halted, its needs to be open to everybody and if you look back at the website, in 2017 it was very clear they ran public exhibitions, it was open to all, people could walk in and discuss and look at all these things, this is simply not able to happen, it’s not possible, the way that it is being portrayed to people is a form of censorship, the censorship being that the difficulty in navigating the online documents and that they are only a limited part of our residents, so she urged the council to think about this, to think about the consultation with the residents this is for them, their future, they represent the residents and they need to be sure that they are building a community for public spaces that they want and they can only do that by engaging with them, she said she would like to reiterate that 2 of the councillors have said “to engage in this we need people to partake as early as they can”, that hasn’t happened and very many people cannot partake because they either don’t know about it or cannot get out to do it. Another councillor mentioned that they need to know people’s views, they can only know people’s views by telling them it’s happening and giving them the opportunity to respond. We need to halt this consultation I fully support it and urge councillors to vote in favour of this motion.
Councillor Maddern said on the 18th of November she voted in support of the draft local plan to go out to consultation, however no one of them knew at that time what was going to happen with regards to lockdown and the difficulty in regards to getting the information out to residents, she said it seemed that some areas of the borough haven’t received the booklet and she is concerned that not enough people would have been informed or would have had an opportunity to properly consider the consultation, as an example she said just 23 hours ago the Chaulden and Warner’s end councillor asked on Facebook for people to let them know if they hadn’t received the information booklet, so they could deliver them, so far people in 6 roads within their roads within their ward have said they hadn’t seen in, but even if our three hard working Chaulden & Warners end councillors had beetled around delivering those booklets today that doesn’t give people time to fully digest the 359 pages before the lengthy and somewhat onerous task of submitting comments online, for those that don’t have online facilitates they simply wouldn’t get it posted back to the forum in time, whilst I absolutely believe that our councillors are in agreement about the unreasonable pressure on numbers from the government, this isn’t the point here, she also passionately believe that we are here to serve our residents and we have duty to give them a voice, she doesn’t believe that legally no facility to delay or extend this consultation due to the exceptional circumstances until such time that people can enjoy the freedom to visit exhibitions and feel properly informed, she also doesn’t believe that they should be abandon or withdrawing this consultation simply, simply that they should be extending it further until such time that people can properly view it.
Councillor Johnson said he doesn’t propose to speak on behalf of all Dacorum residents but he does wish to speak on behalf of Kings Langley residents, Our electors called a parish poll in Nov 2017 in response to the initial draft local plan options and issues consultation and subsequently voted by over 99% against any form of greenbelt development, they have subsequently took a full and active part in the consultation. Over the last 3 years they’ve continued to play an active part as the next stage of the consultation process developed with social media posts, newsletters to every household about what was happening and regular articles in my Kings News and Kings Langley village news. Since Nov 2020 in addition to the documentation provided by Dacorum Borough Council there has continued to be newsletters, articles in the local my Kings news and Kings Langley village news, sustained social media debate and the list goes on all about the threat posed by housing developments, not only in the parish of Kings Langley but in the Kings Langley employment area and the Kings Langley estate both of which are not on our doorstep in the Three Rivers area but on our doormat in Kings Langley, with the publication of the draft local plan they have responded online, by email and by writing a letter if they don’t have a computer, they did not need an invitation to do so as they are independent and intelligent people who worked this out for themselves. He said he could go on but as others have suggested the motion is saying they should ignore every response they’ve received and consult what is arguably going to be on higher number of houses to be built per annum a subsequent higher number of greenbelt sites to develop and ignore completely the fact they have another round of consultation after this and then the planning inspector and that’s where the fight needs to happen. He said, could things have been done better? yes things can always be done better but he opposes this motion because he does not accept that Kings Langley residents have been simultaneously been impeded, excluded, confused, he does not believe they have failed to understand there is a draft local plan consultation or assumes the process has already been suspended or though that they needed to understand the formula in order to realise that over 900 houses per year was far too many.
Councillor Banks said wanted to agree with the opening comments by Councillor Rogers and like Cllr Pringle I too have received letters emails phone calls and knock on her door regarding the emerging local plan, he had encouraged everyone to either go online, to write a letter or to make a phone call as you advised on page 2 of the booklet. She understand that not every house has received it she knew has had site of Hemel Online and of the Gazette of Local publication and their own in touch and political news sheets, she too is very passionate about protecting the greenbelt she is very passionate about keeping the number of houses to meet their needs alone, that they are eco-friendly and that they have the infrastructure for any development going forward, she said she is equally passionate about democracy and she feels it would be an absolute insult to residents of Dacorum to cancel or postpone the consultation any further, she is really pleased at the level of participation and was really pleased that gentlemen that don’t have access to the online portals in my area have written letters and she has redirected every enquiry she has had a bout the booklet or lack of booklet to officer and she knows that those booklets have been posted out because the residents have bought the booklets to show her. She feels it’s imperative that they move forward and take not of what local residents have to say and feels it’s rather insulting to think they should stop the process now and ignore all those hard efforts of those people that shared their contribution, so consequently she will not be supporting the motion.
Councillor Elliot said this is just grandstanding by the Liberal Democrats, because you’ll all recall their manifesto from 2019 when they were matching the Conservative and Labour manifestos at 300000 houses per annum, they talk about democracy but this is a party that ignored the democratic move of the people under the EU Referendum so their talking about local democracy, he said they are trying to gather evidence against building these extra houses, so it’s a case of ask conservatives, they oppose building on the greenbelt they want to gather the evidence to give it to central government to show that our residents are opposed to this building and Cllr Pringle talks about she’s got overwhelming evidence but comes to Cllr England and Cllr Symington say there is not enough evidence so where is this coming from, they either have overwhelming evidence or no evidence, so again I oppose this motion.
Councillor Adeleke said he no longer wishes to speak as him points were made by his colleagues.
Councillor Mahmood said Covid 19 has created a digital revolution I think I speak about my elders of 96 years who 12 months go could not use computers and WhatsApp and social media who because of Covid 19 have learnt to do so, so there are a lot more familiar with the internet of thing than they were 13 months, whilst is true that some people who may have not had the support and may have missed that, however the vast majority of people he thinks have heard or would have seen the consultation because of Dacorum Digest because of the campaign the members have led on both sides of the argument, so for him he said there is no reason whatsoever for extending the consultation period which was longer than normal, it has been covered in the papers, it was covered everywhere so he thinks in terms of publicity it was a job well done, for him he said the consultation must go ahead and the prioress must proceed rather than grandstanding and falling foul of the planning inspectorate and having the planning inspector force numbers upon them because they’ve not been capable or competent to carry through the process, so for him Cllr Sutton earlier said there were 2000 people over 5000 responses 46000 hits on the website so I think people, not everybody is passionate he is sure there are a lot of people passionate, there are parts of the borough where people aren’t affected so they haven’t taken the time to engage, he hoped they do but they haven’t and that their choice, he thinks the feedback from what he is hearing will help Decorum’s case with both Westminster and the panning inspectorate to get the numbers reduced, so he thinks the consultation is a key part of the fight that the council has been putting up through the MPS and through representation to say we can’t cope with these numbers, equally he thinks it is on record for the past 2 decades, he has been a councillor for 14 odd years, this council has fought very hard to protect the boroughs greenbelt, and he has not seem anything from this side of the chamber which tells me that that resolve has softens, that resolve is there, everybody is passionate, they want to get the numbers reduces but follow due process which he thinks is the right thing to do, he said for him he is not going to support the motion, he said it’s very easy when you’re in the opposition to point fingers and he thinks they have to look at the Lib Dem councils around, the manners in which they have dealt with the consultation, he thinks the current administration have done a very good jo and consultations like these, local plans, they are 1000s of pages, you could take a year and still not get through it, he feels people will get their points heard, either through email or through consultation and he knows a lot of people have people helping , Listening to Cllr Pringle certainly on her neck of the woods making sure everybody from young to the elderly re engaging which is a positive sign, he thinks the passion for the right reason or the wrong reason has helped publicise the whole affair, so for him he said it’s a good administration they get things done, they’re not a talking shop and he means the conservative so he thinks there is a very good chance once the feedback comes in.
Councillor Hobson said that she just considers herself a resident. She happened to join the Lib Dems because they aligned with her values at the time. She said that we are here to represent our residents. The Council has form in publically being seen to not listen to residents. She thinks they are seriously risking again, being seen not to listen to residents. They will come back and say, “we’ve got the consultation and that’s what we’re listening to” but she thinks the way that a lot of people that spoke against the motion this evening could appear to be sounding tone deaf to what residents’ views are. It’s a real opportunity for the whole Council, whatever colour they are politically, to really show that you are listening and willing to listen to residents and that’s not just by following due process. If the Council doesn’t agree with the numbers, if the Council is passionate about protecting the green belt, why have they issued consultation proposing to release, forever and ever irrevocably, swathes of the green belt in the hope that following a risky strategy, a gamble, that enough residents will be able to see the consultation, respond, some people will be angry or frustrated or giving opinions rather than maybe responding to the questions which Officers can then use to put forward good solid evidence. If, as some of us have understood, there is a very risky strategy during a pandemic when people are very distracted by home-schooling, working from home, being ill themselves, helping other people, losing people and having to deal with the trauma of loss, if not enough people respond because of these understandable reasons, this is a very risky strategy of the Council to consult on something that they don’t believe in, in the hope that people will turn it down. Why didn’t they consult on something that they did want and then take all of the positive evidence to the Planning Inspectorate? Cllr Hobson has only been a Councillor for a couple of years and does try to represent her residents. She asks do we really think that if we extend this or if we postpone this, that the Government will then say they will ignore that fact that there has been a year of hiatus of opening and closing. The Government will be on very shaky ground to force Local Authorities to push forward something that they haven’t been able to consult on properly and I think that the Council could be a lot stronger in this. We are hearing a lot of positive words but what we see in writing and the process that’s being followed does not match the passion and the words and all of the things that we’ve heard. It will be really good if somebody who knows about this could address this point. If the Planning Inspectorate turned down or if we didn’t have the plan in place by the appointed time and builders could build wherever, but under the current scheme wouldn’t the green belt be protected because these swathes wouldn’t have been released as the current consultation proposes. Cllr Hobson’s supports the motion and what Councillor Maddern said about a delay. But she really does think that the Council needs to listen as their appearance in front of residents is not positive.
Councillor Colette Wyatt-Lowe said that the sheer weight of emails sent to her on this matter indicates that we are reaching many local residents. Also that we have to follow due process to make our submissions valid. She feels disappointed that the Lib Dems have chosen to attack the administration as we all want to protect our green belt and we need a consultation to add weight that reflects the rejection by our residents of the numbers proposed by the Government and working together we can only strengthen the impact of that rejection. Cllr Wyatt-Lowe urges working together going forward to the next stages of this and then we will achieve a truly unified response from the Borough. She believes that the Lib Dems are almost trying to create a situation of them and us when it should be WE working together to push this through and to get the Government to listen and together that will add the weight that is needed. Cllr Wyatt-Lowe cannot support this motion because the basic premise of the motion itself is flawed.
Councillor Allen said that he is heartened by what Cllr Wyatt-Lowe says and Cllr Timmis and Cllr Rogers that our Tory colleagues are keen to resist the numbers being proposed. Cllr Wyatt-Lowe highlights a desire for it to be WE, and since Christmas he has been writing letters on this matter and it would have been helpful if Conservative colleagues could have flagged up their support for resisting the numbers back then. There are concerns about things that have been said in this debate, Section 18 Consultation in which residents are able to provide commentary, Section 19 that commentary does not have the same weight and therefore to say that there are further consultations is not necessarily helpful unless those further consultations involve the public being able to offer commentary. The commentary that has been received so far from residents, far from the 5000 he has just heard quoted, it was said earlier that it was 500 responses so far. Colleagues say that they want to hear what people say, is 500 enough? We want a stronger message than that and therefore, a consultation in which a large number of people have not been able to access because of digital barriers, paper versions because libraries are not essential journeys, a large number of void houses which is really many streets and quite large chunks of our communities have not received the leaflet and he still getting emails, this morning he forwarded one to Strategic Services requesting a leaflet. This is days before the consultation ends, it is too late. If we want more people to respond, it to be needs at a time when people have the head space, although the messages are getting out there and so many people are responding but we are not getting the commentary that is needed on this consultation. The news that is on the TV is missing really important issues because it is all about Covid and vaccines. Parents are run ragged trying to look after their children’s education, people are generally disengaged at the moment from a lot of very important normal life messages and communications because they are getting through a period of time in which there is this enormous distraction. He really feels that we don’t want to lose the commentary received so far but we need additional commentary and at a time when our residents are in the head space to be able to engage with this issue and currently he feels that they are not.
Councillor Anderson said he cannot support the motion as he can’t understand why anybody would want to start again with a bigger number of houses which will be the consequence of stopping this consultation. If all the people who have claimed to have said that they support this were made aware that the consequence of having to start again would involve more housing still, he doesn’t think Members who supported the motion would have had the same answers. Process has to be followed that is prescribed by the Government and if we don’t follow this process the consequences are quite clear and we will end up with developers being able to develop what they like, where they like. One of the issues, particularly in Kings Langley, is with the Three Rivers Liberal controlled Authority and their issues and options consultation composed massive of houses on the east side of the Gade Valley each side of the M25. By not actually following the prescribed route they are taking a huge risk with that housing potentially happening, it’s all green belt and that would wreck the whole of the Gade Valley which worries Cllr Anderson that the Liberals at Three Rivers are running that risk. We need the public opinion as evidence to say that we can’t do this. It may not work, and one way of ensuring it doesn’t work is not to try it and in terms of risks the bigger risk is not to do it. If the Lib Dems portray that the Council somehow were in favour of all of this development by going through this process, that is their luxury as opposition, but if anyone is truly objective they will understand that we have to go through this process we do not have any choice in this matter. In terms of listening to the public, they have been listened to and by enlarge we do agree with them, but there is a lot of misleading information with some Councillors claiming that another group of Councillors are in favour of the development when they are not. It is just as important that we listen to people as well as important that we are honest with the public about where we stand. At the General Election all three political parties were fully in support of this massive amount of housing but at a local level you will find that none of us are agreeing to it. This is a more honest position to have with the public that than with inaccurate claims. The consultation is not easy but has to follow a prescribed method. With regards to terms and availability, with Covid things have become a lot more digital and not everyone has access to the Internet but there isn’t a lot that can be done if some people don’t have access and he understands that some people don’t have that chance but vast majority of the public do. The Government has made it plain that they do not see the pandemic as a reason for any Authorities to hold up the planning process, in fact there are looking to Planning Authorities to accelerate the process to lead the recovery through greater house building. For all of these reasons and more, he cannot support this motion. We don’t like this level of housing but we have to follow the process and try and combat what the Government is trying inflict on our residents.
Councillor Barry said she is supporting this motion for all of the reasons that have been outlined by both parties that not enough people have been able to have their say, to loads of barriers put in place. She is completely disheartened by what is being said from the Conservatives. They say that we are only a small District Council and cannot make a difference. Councillor Johnson insinuated that his residents are intelligent as they have read it, but yours aren’t, no they just have barriers and this is not about intelligence. This is about standing up for our community and emails that everyone has been receiving from residents across Dacorum are saying that they can’t believe this is happening at a time when there is so much else going on. People do not have the time to go through 149 pages with 4 days to go and some people have only just heard about it. To say we need their input for this to go ahead as the Section 18 or 19 is confusing, so you are saying we need the input but how we are getting this input, we can’t oppose it without this input that you say we are getting but it is clear we aren’t, is it 5000 responses or is it 2000. 42,000 hits are not 42,000 responses. It seems clear to her that some Councillors do not want to represent their community and it is really disappointing. She feels there should be a recorded vote on this so it can be seen who is not willing to support their community and their residents and what they want and if they cared about extending or agreeing with it you would have proposed an amendment but didn’t.
Councillor Taylor said he was disappointed by the response of the Conservative party. They seem to have forgotten that they are in power in Central Government, you set the rules, whether they are set nationally or locally. Dacorum is represented by two Conservative MPs, one of which was elected with an explicit promise to protect the green belt and if anyone thinks that a 25% increase in the size of Berkhamsted and 50% increase in the size of Tring in the draft Plan is an appropriate development, he must question their understanding of language. Now MP is in Parliament he has forgotten about the people who elected him. An algorithm was created which would inflate the numbers where the developers wanted to build them. When it was challenged the Central Government went back to earlier figures and in effect the target for Dacorum went up. If the numbers used had been the original numbers that the new algorithm it would have resulted in the halving of the target for Dacorum. In effect the targets were set and the numbers fiddled to give the desired results. This makes the Draft Plan ridiculous as the numbers would be more than halved if they had followed the logic of their own rules. The continuation of the consultation treats our residents with contempt. There are too many houses, they are the wrong type and they are in the wrong place. Please support this motion.
Councillor Freedman said that he wanted to highlight two issues with some of the things that he has heard about the motion. If this motion is passed it specifically states that when the consultation is re-launched it will take into account of the comments that have currently been received so there is no part of this motion that is saying that those that have already responded would be ignored. The other issue he wanted to highlight is some people have talked about the difference between the Conservative and the Lib Dem approach to this, he thinks that one of the key differences on it is that the Conservative position seems to be the end justifies the means, if you can get the responses you want that help to oppose the numbers then you’ve done the right thing. But they don’t seem to mind that a lot of people feel excluded so whilst you might get the result a lot of residents, even if they are going to be saying the same things that other people have already put on they are going to feel excluded and one of the points of this motion is to make sure that everybody has ample chance to respond. So even if we all want the same result we do disagree on how to get it.
Councillor Uttley said she is delighted that some of the Conservative Councillors finally agree that the figure prepared in the Local Plan is not supported by evidence with a couple of notable exceptions. When this was previously brought up there has been a reliance on commitments to suggest that changing proposals when there is new evidence and it’s the new evidence that she would like to point out here because not only is this consultation going on during a pandemic, this consultation and Local Plan is unable to change direction. There is an enormous amount of potential changes in our society happening just now and we our consulting on a society that was the one we had three or four years ago. Councillor Uttley feels that this is something we really need to think about and would also like to point out that the Conservative Councillors say that they want a lot of responses and there aren’t a lot of responses. Even if people have got access to online media this is not an easy consultation to navigate, it’s not just 130/ 150 pages, there’s another 138 documents in the background and if you really want to understand it you have to look at them. It’s overwhelming and difficult for people who are home schooling, working and worrying for people to access this properly. People point out that we are trying to avoid risk from predatory developers which is not entirely fair to suggest because when a Council does not have a five year land supply in evidence, which we don’t right now, we fall back on national planning policy. National planning policy framework protects our green belt land. Releasing our green belt land, if we are forced to do it by proceeding with this consultation, will definitely not protect our green belt land so I think releasing this is a far greater risk.
Councillor Guest says she has been fighting to save the green belt in Dacorum since 1996 and she’s not going to stop now. Everyone in this Council wants to save the green belt but she doesn’t think that this motion is the way to do it. When our core strategy was adopted in 2013 the Planning Inspectorate passed it on the condition that we went for an early partial review because its housing numbers were on the low side. The early partial review that we are doing now, and if we didn’t have a sound Local Plan in place then developers could build what they like where they like when they like. We need to have a sound Local Plan. 922 houses PA is too much but if we came in with a lower figure in our consultation, if we went to the Planning Inspectorate with a lower figure that would be found unsound and we would not have a sound Local Plan giving developers the freedom to build what they like where they like when they like. For us to effectively challenge these figures and effectively have a lower figure, to have a sound Local Plan with lower figures in we need evidence and we have to consult to get that evidence so that is what we are doing. It is by consulting that we will have the evidence to go to the Planning Inspectorate and say we can’t do 922 houses PA and this is the reason why. Councillor Guest opposes the motion and she supports the green belt.
Councillor Tindall said that what he was going to say has been said by others and so he will not speak.
Councillor Stevens said he was confused by the comments that Cllr Rogers made at the beginning that we are trying to get the numbers changed. His reading of the Plan tells him that it has been prepared to match the requirements in the NPPF, that it has been positively prepared etc. We have challenged the Minister and he has come back with higher numbers and Cllr Taylor makes the point. National Government makes the rules and he hasn’t heard anything from colleagues that suggests that they are willing to challenge the rules. We need to use evidence to support our case and so far no one has said we’ve got to change the basis under which we challenge the rules. Regarding the Consultation from a marketing sense, when you have 64,000 properties in the Borough and you have only a few hundred responses, he wouldn’t say that you’ve got a comprehensive input on your consultation and he feels that is what needs to be done. He is sure there are a lot of people who have written in but we are missing a huge number of people who are unable access the information because of other distractions. Councillor Stevens is supporting the motion but would like to see a better consultation and as we move forward he would like to make sure that the Council consults on the right numbers for the right homes in the right places without the release of all of the green belt that is being talked about, otherwise it is a cynical exercise.
Councillor Williams said that the Local Plan and the consultation process is very complicated and to do justice in 85 minutes is quite challenging. The situation hasn’t changed greatly as it was implied since launching the consultation in November. We knew in November that it would be remote and wouldn’t be having face-to-face meetings, the only change is the announcement on 16th December, which he doesn’t agree confused people with the Government’s intention which if anything made the situation worse for the Council for 1023 but we are not consulting on 1023 we are consulting 922, so nothing came out on 16th December that requires us to change our tack. Whatever is done as a consultation even in the best of times, you are only going to reach and get responses from a very small proportion of the population – 2-3% would be a significant return in terms of responding to any sort of consultation. If there are a reasonable number of responses, that can be relied upon to give us the evidence that is required. During the process of this consultation Cllr Williams has seen some very accurate portrayals of what the Local Plan is about and some very inaccurate ones too. Some of the suggestions that it is green belt grabbed by developers is ridiculous, this would be if there wasn’t a Plan in place and they are able to make applications however they like. The process of having a Plan is to control the amount of land that is released and to have some control over the type of development. We have worked hard on getting the right type of homes and could be criticized that there are too many one and two bedroomed flats and not enough family homes in the Plan and there have been debates around the affordability and other issues. But there has never been a Conservative Councillor say we support 922 but we do know, and I heard Cllr Uttley say, that the bar to come up with a different number is very high. There are very few areas in which you can challenge the figure that the Government has handed down. When we go at some point following this consultation the Inspector will look as a starting point at has there been enough done to achieve the 922 or a 1023 or whatever it might be and if we haven’t then you need to do that. In 2013 Plan we were 2000 below the figure we were supposed to provide at that time and the Inspector said he wasn’t sure that we had tried hard enough and you need to do an early partial review. What this Plan is not endorsing 922, no Conservative Councillor has ever endorsed 922, what is being said is this Plan demonstrates how 922 can be achieved and we are seeking residents views on what Dacorum would look like with that level of development in place to achieve what is required in the Plan. The purpose of the consultation is to get people’s views on what Dacorum would look like with 922 and he believes to that end we are achieving that. We will then have to consider what our options would be going forward in terms of taking forward the Plan to further consultation to amendment, to looking at the levels of development we have got, the types of development we’ve got in the Borough and taking into account the changing face of retail, commercial to residential, but we have to accept that within Dacorum and in particular Hemel Hempstead, offices have not been attractive to the market for the last 20 years and almost everything that can be converted to residential already has been even pre-Covid, so the opportunities from commercial to residential are very limited. Councillor Williams can reassure everyone at the meeting this evening, that this administration is facing its responsibility to produce and demonstrate what a Plan would look like to meet the National target. It is a target that all parties are signed up, and the Conservatives are facing up to our responsibilities as administration and that it is seriously facing up to the challenge that we face with this Plan and he will not support the motion.
Councillor Pringle summarised and thinks it is really insightful for the residents who she welcomes to the meeting tonight to hear the arguments that take place in this forum. We are told that it’s up to the residents during a pandemic to save the Conservative party from their own colleagues. My residents have written to the MPs and they have written to Councillors and have been told that the MPs say it’s the Councillors and the Councillors say it’s the MPs. Cllr Pringle suggests to Cllr Williams that he stands up to the MPs because he represents the residents not Westminster, because we risk a developer-lead free for all right across our countryside for people to fill their pockets from asset stripping our country. Cllr Pringle says that Cllr Williams said that during a pandemic he is leaving it up to widows, parents who are home schooling and people who only have a land-line and that he cannot stand up to the Government and that you rely on people but you can’t even get a pamphlet delivered even though it has already been extended by 3 weeks. Cllr Pringle has the evidence from people who all tell her that they had heard nothing about it. Cllr Pringle has been doing the work that he should have ensured was planned for when she warned that we can’t go ahead with this consultation because it is not fair to our residents. Cllr Pringle and her Lib Dem colleagues are committed to representing our residents which is sometimes tough, but there is a concept called Managing Up and what this means is when you represent the residents of the Borough and someone tries to force something on you that your residents do not want or is not in the interests of the Borough and being in the middle of a pandemic, you say that you are going to talk to some of these people in my party, this seems that the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. The Mayor doesn’t seem to recollect what he was told a few days earlier as the County Councillor so he can’t express the things that he has witnessed at the Northchurch Parish Council meeting when he was specifically asked to pass it back to you, this is evidence. Cllr Pringle says that what Cllr Williams is doing is a disgrace to the residents, people are genuinely worried and he is putting them through it because of some sort of game he is playing with Westminster and when people call you out you are saying don’t look at me look at him. Why should residents trust you and that somehow some magic will be played behind closed doors and what is proposed, because one thing that is clear there is a lot of green belt fields on these plans and there is a risk that it will be released for building and lost, because once it has gone it has gone forever and damages the ecology and the countryside on the edge of an Outstanding Area of Natural Beauty and he is risking it all because you want the residents to come and save you and that is not good enough. When it is all stripped back that is what everyone has said, how much respect does that show the people that have elected you, who do you work for – those who elect you or those who tell you what to do, are you puppets on a string or do you have any say in your hollowed out party anymore. Each of you who has spoken needs to reflect on that in this recorded vote. Cllr Pringle would also take exception to someone who suggests that people in Kings Langley somehow are much more cleverer that people in Northchurch, what she suggest is that maybe you only speak to people who have IT at home, people who you are professionals maybe who worked from home, but do you speak to people who don’t have IT at home, do you speak to people who only have an IPhone where they can’t look at these plans, do you speak to people who only have a landline or the elderly. She suggests that you don’t, she suggest s that every time an election comes around you just rely on your party and your blue rosettes to get elected and you do not speak with or engage with your residents the way she has. Because this is evidence, she knows her people and she knows what they want, and 100% say this isn’t fair, this is wrong, this is legally questionable. But more than being legally questionable, it’s morally reprehensible to do this to people and we risk losing something so precious at a time of national crisis. Under this Government more people have died with Covid 19 than in the last war, think about that, would you be asking people to sit and wade through 9 hours of documents during the blitz, but that is what you are asking real people to do. But because they are isolated and alone behind their front doors and bereaved like Dorothy who gave her specific permission for me to tell her story, her husband loved the green belt. Cllr Pringle asked Dorothy if she could use her name tonight and she agreed as she wanted everyone to know. Those people who say that she is not clever enough, not as clever as my residents in Kings Langley, how does that sound, you are an elected representative and that’s what is being told to residents across Dacorum. Cllr Pringle says this is not acceptable because this pamphlet which she received, and she is only one of 3 odd of eight of the Northchurch Parish Councillors who have received this, it tells people clearly that there is two ways to get involved, you go to the consultation portal, which we have already heard took 9 hours from Mrs Smith, although our friend of Kings Langley thinks that she’s maybe not as clever as the people there, or you can email. What do people who are 101 years old with only a landline do, they get ignored. But my 101 year old resident has spoken at length in the letter that he took the time to hand write to her to say how valuable the green belt is to him. What is worse is that how can we trust people when we hear Councillor Griffiths say the libraries are closed when Cllr Pringle has a letter from Strategic Services dated December to Northchurch Parish Council saying “with regard to the Libraries which are currently open in the Borough, Hemel Hempstead, Berkhamsted and Tring, we have implemented a number of measures to ensure that they are compliant with Covid secure requirements in order to limit browsing time. The Council has provided a pack of documents which Library members can loan from.
Councillor Griffiths had a point of order and said that she was asked a question about why the members of staff were speaking to our tenants in her questioning and she said we do not tell them to go to the Libraries, the majority of libraries are closed. Cllr Griffiths stands by that, the majority as she understand it are closed, certainly in Leverstock Green it is closed and maybe in Adeyfield. The main library may be open here for limited services but the Council, and this is what she was referring to in answering the question, she said we do not tell tenants to go to the library, and that she understands they closed. Cllr Griffiths feels this is getting very personal on how Cllrs conduct themselves and to judge Members on how they perform their duties as Cllrs, this is not the function of this motion in her opinion.
The Mayor said he has tried to be considerate to Cllr Pringle but he has noted Cllr Griffiths comments. He feels it has got to the point where in the remaining 2 minutes that Cllr Pringle has, that he must ask that she addresses herself specifically to the motion and not to any other comments about other people etc. Please address your final 2 minutes to the motion.
Councillor Pringle asked the Mayor does she get a chance to respond. The Mayor replied that she does not and that there was a point of order and the process is that the Mayor responds to the point of order and others do not have an opportunity to question the Mayor’s decision on the point of order.
Councillor Pringle said she feels that it does not need a response as the public have witnessed what they need to witness this evening. Cllr Pringle has an elderly resident who phoned up to find out how she could see the actual documents because she has difficulty with her eyesight and the only place she can do this was in The Forum, and she was asked whether it would be a lawful journey and was told that they would rather that she didn’t. This is an example of a situation, Cllr Pringle does not wish to be personal but she takes this seriously because it is the real people who matter to her, not whether she offends a particular Cllr, but whether she offends the people of Dacorum who she thinks have had some fairly offensive remarks made about their ability to navigate this incredibly difficult process. We know the brochures haven’t been delivered, we have the evidence, we know that people are not aware of this, we know that the Council is choosing to say it’s not me it’s them about Westminster. Cllr Pringle feels that this is reprehensible to continue with this under the current conditions and to ask the residents to dig the Council out of the hole. Therefore, Cllr Pringle implores everyone to do what 100% of the respondents in Northchurch have asked for, what all of the Town and Parish Councils across the Borough have asked for and what all of the residents groups together have asked for. Please support this motion, please speak for the residents and not for Westminster.