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.

Response to the Autumn Statement

The chancellor's statement (see the key points here) this afternoon once again reiterated how little he understands just how much ordinary families, particularly in the north east, are struggling. Whilst hard working families need help with their bills now, the best the chancellor could offer was a pledge to kick them slightly less whilst they are down.

It would be churlish to admit there wasn't some welcome news.

The increase in personal income tax allowance to £10,000 from April 2014 will help most in work retain more of their wages. It is nevertheless disappointing however that he won't commit to increasing this further and work towards removing all earning the minimum wage from paying income tax altogether.

The increase of £2.95/week in the basic state pension is also welcome. However, this is hardly news - following the changes announced in 2012 the increase was already guaranteed; the announcement was akin to being cheered to the rafters for declaring tomorrow to be Friday.

We also, finally, had confirmation of the married couples and civil partners tax break to be introduced from 2014. Granted, this only qualifies as good news if you are married or in a civil partnership - if you are single, cohabiting, or widowed this announcement might well be considered a waste of £700million (which, don't forget, we don't have so needs to be borrowed).

Oh, erm, this is rather embarrassing. That seems to be all the good news I can find.

What we also found out is that, despite the much publicised government announcement of a £50 saving, the average energy bill will still rise by £70 this winter. Already exorbitant rail fails will, on average, rise by inflation (ie by more than your wages are rising). Fuel duty will once again be frozen, but that is hardly a help if you already cannot afford to fill and run your car.

Of particularly concerning news for the north east is the announced increase in state retirement age, to 68 in the mid-2030s and to 69 in the late-2040s. Given the Healthy Life Expectancy for the North East is 59.7 years for men and 60.2 years for women - the lowest of any region of the UK - and the disproportionately high number of employees engaged in heavy manual labour in the region, increasing numbers of us will be forced to, literally, work until we drop.

Although it has been patently obvious for some time now, this government of millionaires really does not comprehend how increasingly difficult the average family is finding it to get by. For 40 out of the 41 months of this government, inflation has outpaced the rise in incomes.

Put another way, for 40 out of 41 months of this government we have been getting poorer. Much poorer.

Indeed, figures publicised by Labour today show that the average household is £1,600/year worse off than when this government came into power. (NB I use this figure with a caveat: as is Labour's way, this figure is incredibly simplistic as it only compares inflation directly with wages and fails to take into account changes to tax allowances, benefits, etc.).

What is clearer than ever is that this country, and particularly the North East, needs support and a change of government priorities. What is clearer than ever is that the Conservatives and Lib Dems have no intention of delivering that change.

What is also clear is that Labour can never, ever be trusted with our economy again. Although the ConDem coalition have proved to be poor stewards, it would be sheer lunacy to throw Labour the keys to the economy they crashed so spectacularly.

Only one party pledges to cut your fuel bills, not just marginally slow the rate of their increase; only one party pledges to cut taxes and business rates across the board for every small and medium sized business in the country; only one party pledges to put the poor of our own region ahead of those in foreign countries.

And that party is UKIP.