Yarm footpath maintenance schemes - some good news

It isn't often I have had the opportunity to share good news regarding Yarm in recent times, but today is an happy exception.

I have now received confirmation of the areas which will have new footpaths laid throughout Yarm and Kirklevington during 2015/16. These are:

- Carew Close (full length)

- Forest Lane (various areas)

- Ryedale Close (full length)

- Larun Beat (from Lympton Gate to The Slayde).

These works are in addition to the resurfacing of Challoner Road (between Skirlaw Road and Meynell's Walk) already scheduled for this financial year.

Whilst we have a number of paths throughout the ward in need of resurfacing, Larun Beat has been in a serious state for disrepair for many years and is one of, if not the, worst in Yarm. This was one of the first issues I raised as a councillor, and I know councillors Andrew Sherris and Jennie Beaumont worked hard to raise this several times prior to my own election. Whilst it is sadly not the done thing for the old political parties locally, it would be wrong not to thank the aforementioned equally for their work in this regard.

Although no dates have been finalised for the work to be undertaken as yet, I will notify residents as soon as they are agreed.

If you believe any other areas are particularly in need of resurfacing - or at the very least some remedial work - feel free to drop me a line at mark.chatburn@stockton.gov.uk so we can endeavour to include them in future work programs.

Tory MP inadvertantly admits Tory planning policy to blame for planning approvals

This week saw the latest controversial planning application to hit our area approved, with permission granted to build 330 new homes on the site of the iconic Tall Trees hotel (read the Evening Gazette report here).

The initial determination was deferred in December to allow the council the opportunity to take legal advice on the suggested grounds for refusal. At this week's meeting, enough councillors changed their mind to see the application approved, after the opinion of Alan Evans QC stated "...the merits of the Council’s reasons for refusal are weak and that they would be very unlikely to be defended successfully on appeal."

Furthermore, Alan Evans QC continued: "I also think that the Council is in territory where it would be at significant risk of an award of costs on the basis of unreasonable refusal". (You can read the full legal opinion here).

Whilst I have been a critic of the Tories' new planning rules from their inception, and indeed they were one of the major reasons for my resigning from the Conservative party (see here), hitherto our local Tory MP has refused to criticise the new rules.

However, in today's Darlington and Stockton Times, the mask slipped.

Although Mr Wharton, Tory MP for Stockton South, "refused to respond" to my call for him to speak out against the damaging planning reforms his government has introduced, he did comment:

"The reason Stockton Council keeps passing planning applications is because of the failure to meet its five-year supply."

Even on the face of it, Mr Wharton's comment is laughable - the idea that Stockton Council is solely to blame for approving the recent planning applications because it hasn't been approving enough planning applications is absurd and contradictory. Perhaps Mr Wharton can tell us which applications received were not eventually granted permission because, in nearly three years on the planning committee, I cannot recall a single one.

More seriously, whilst we do not know if it is ignorance of the detail of the Tories' NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) that led to his remark, or whether it was a genuine Freudian slip, it was the NPPF which deliberately tied councils' hands when a five-year housing supply cannot be demonstrated.

Although councils have long had to publish a five-year housing target, it was only with the advent of the NPPF that a failure to meet these targets had any repercussions.

Paragraph 49 of the NPPF has been the absolute killer. It reads, "Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites."

In situations where parts of a planning authority's local plan are "absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of date", the NPPF takes precedence. This was a situation a majority of councils, including Stockton Council, found themselves in over a year after the NPPF came into effect.

As Alan Evans QC makes perfectly clear, it was the fact that the council's policies were 'out-of-date' which was the overriding factor in reaching the opinion he did.

So how about it Mr Wharton? Why don't you put aside your blind party loyalty, stop taking local residents for fools, and call on the government to immediately amend, or abandon, its catastrophic NPPF?

It can bully its planning committee, but Stockton Council can't bully me

On 11:19 on Christmas Eve I received an e-mail (below) from Stockton Council's legal services department notifying me that they were investigating a complaint that I had breached the Members Code of Conduct by highlighting the council's attempts to bully and manipulate those councillors who sit on its planning committee (see my blog post here).

Back in June, Stockton Council's planning committee voted overwhelmingly, and somewhat surprisingly, to reject a controversial application to build 159 properties on land at Urlay Nook, Eaglescliffe.

As is now par for the course, the developer lodged an appeal whilst simultaneously submitting another planning application which was virtually identical to their previous failed bid.

The week before the committee was due to hear the second planning application, back in November, officers at Stockton Council circulated a legal brief to members of the planning committee which advised if councillors were to approve the revised application it "would probably result in the withdrawal of the appeal". Not only that, it claimed it would make "good sense" to approve the application in order to "extricate the council from the very difficult position it now faces". (read the report in the Evening Gazette here).

Now, there are only two possible reasons for council officers circulating the legal opinion it its entirety as they did - a move they concede was "unusual" and which they admit they couldn't give another single example of when they had done likewise. It was either a display of quite breath-taking incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to manipulate the result of the forthcoming vote.

I had no hesitation in publishing the legal brief in its entirety, and would do so again without a moment's thought.  Too many council officers seem to have forgotten that the only reason they have a job at all is to serve the residents of the borough. To my mind, such a job description does not include trying to rig votes in favour of wealthy landowners and developers contrary to the wishes of residents.

But what irked me the most about the letter I received last month regarding the investigation was not its content - which hardly came as a surprise - it was the timing.

Nearly 7 weeks had elapsed since I published the brief without a single word from the council that any investigation would take place, or was even being considered. Then, on Christmas Eve of all days, and at the instigation of David Bond, the council's Director of Law and Democracy, the letter was e-mailed to me.

Not only that, when I replied to the e-mail just 10 minutes later, both David Bond and Jonathan Nertney - the principal solicitor who signed the letter - were both out of the office until the new year, at least according to the automated messages I received back.

Now, I suppose it's possible sending me the letter by e-mail was Jonathan's last act of the day before, very quickly, setting his out-of-office and skipping out of the office? Or perhaps he and/or David Bond are so utterly spiteful that they thought it a good idea to delay sending it until Christmas Eve, irrespective of the fact they weren't even working that day? Who knows? It doesn't matter.

Stockton Council might have been successful in its bullying of the planning committee - the revised application being approved in November as officers wished (see here) - but they are making an huge mistake if they think they can bully me in the same way.

I will always stand up for residents, acting in their best interests, saying what they want me to say and doing what they want me to do. If Stockton Council have a problem with that, then they will just have to find a way to learn to live with their disappointment.