THERE were incredible scenes this morning (Thursday) as a number of Councillors claimed they had not been included in the draft Local Plan for Wealden.
It all happened during the Wealden District Council’s ‘Extraordinary Meeting’, where councillors were asked their opinions on the 9000 page Local Plan – however, nine Conservative councillors stood up and left the meeting, claiming it had been ‘rushed through’.
The protestors claim that the entire Plan process has been forced through in ‘tremendous haste’. They say that much of the detail has not been discussed by Councillors and yet has now been published for public consultation.
After the Conservative members left the meeting, Councillor Michael Lunn from the party said: “We do not agree with the way the Green/Lib Dem Coalition proposes to impose hundreds and thousands of houses on unsustainable communities. They promised to reduce housing numbers, but they have not. They promised to protect the High Weald AONB, they have not.
The process has been corrupted by the pursuit of narrow political self-interest by a number of Coalition members, with council officers apparently too weak to resist their demands.
A significant number of opposition councillors have felt infuriated and, in some cases, intimidated by recent communications regarding the legitimacy of whether they can vote on the plan.
The prospect of a significant number of democratically-elected opposition councillors being forced to abstain from voting on the Wealden Green/Lib Dem Coalition Local Plan is an utter travesty for local democracy and the residents they represent.
Due to this corruption of process, the Wealden Conservative Group have collectively withdrawn from the process until we have assurances from Officers that we will not be prosecuted from voicing our residents’ concerns on the draft plan.”
The Chair, Councillor Gavin Blake-Coggins heard from Councillor David White who said: “I find it bizarre that I was elected as a councillor for the whole district, and because as a result as a small pecuniary interest, I have been told I cannot take part in the debate and must leave the room. I have a long-standing interest in South East Marts, where I hold the shares on behalf of the farmers, this site has already been allocated as a housing site, but because of this, I have to leave the meeting.”
Councillor Reed, who represents Uckfield Ridgewood and Little Horsted spoke tearfully and passionately to the committee. She said: “I sit before you with a very heavy heart, when personal circumstances mean I cannot represent my ward or Wealden. Because of a pecuniary interest, I have to step back today. I’m still here and working hard as an Independent, and I hope to see many people at the forthcoming consultations, as we now need the voice of residents to help us, who have been excluded today.”
Deputy Leader Rachel Millward, who represents the Green Party said she was disappointed that the group decided to walk out of the meeting.
She commented: “It is disappointing that the whole Conservative group chose to leave the room. Six Councillors present could have stayed and contributed to the debate and voted on behalf of the residents they were elected to represent. We were all given the same information about conflicts of interest – this is a matter of the law, and absolutely nothing to do with political motive. There was absolutely no reason for six of the eight present to leave. If I were one of their residents, I would not be pleased. Yet again, the Conservatives are failing to engage with the reality of our situation and avoiding involvement in difficult, but vital decisions.”
Gerard Fox, East Sussex County Councillor for Hailsham New Town, said: “The Green/Lib Dem Alliance came to power promising to deliver fewer houses. They have not done this. The Local Plan is the most critical document that they will produce in their four year term. It will have ramifications for decades. The spectacle of at least four opposition councillors (all independents and conservatives) being forced to recuse themselves from voting following confused and in one case contradictory advice, effectively disenfranchising the communities that they represent, is deeply troubling and speaks poorly of the Alliance approach to transparency and good governance.”
26 Councillors voted for opening the consultation phase of the draft Local Plan which concluded the meeting and it will now go to public consultation.
Three Independent Democrats and one Independent abstained, three gave apologies and two Independents declared personal or pecuniary interests and had to leave the room.
Two of the group of nine Conservatives are believed to have prejudicial interests in the draft Local Plan. That means that they own land which is being considered for development within the draft Plan.
