I do wish that you would understand that I am trying to explain the facts as laid before us rather than to
The planning process used to be seen as an administrative process rather than a quasi-judicial one. As such, it was regarded as perfectly in order, so long as the eventual decision was phrased in planning terms, for there to be prediscussion and group meetings, and a group "line". Why this approach was allowed at all defeats me, but it was not the Conservative Government, but the reaction to the sleaze therefrom, which provoked Nolan and other ethical changes.
I have no idea how prevalent this was within the Liberal Democrat group prior to my election as a councillor (if at all), but I am aware of a process of change from the inherited position, which I shall comment on below. Such a practice as described above is certainly entirely at odds with Ombudsman decisions in recent years, and it is my view that a decision which could be proven to have been taken for other than planning reasons might have been challengeable at that time.
Before the Liberal Democrats took over the council, planning decisions were made in private, and extremely quickly with little discussion. It is not credible that the Conservative Group was probably unique in the country in applying a quasi-judicial approach to planning.
This has emerged via both the Nolan process and the decisions of the local government ombudsman on planning matters.
The Liberal Democrats allowed public attendance, public speaking and wider circulation of plans; they stopped group meetings or prediscussions, meetings with developers and interactive and undeclared lobbying.
This process took some time but was in place when I was elected in 1994.
What appears to have happened in 1989 would not have been possible now, as the councillors involved in the alleged meeting would have been unable to participate in the final decision as they would have been executive members. But providing that they did not commit themselves to an outcome, this was in order, and still would be today if we did not have the cabinet system and members of the Committee were involved. So the notes of the meeting are consistent with correct behaviour, and presumably officer advice would have been available in case of any doubt. Since the same lawyers are at the council as were there then I cannot believe their advice would have been much different.
I have no idea whether there was a "group" meeting and an agreed line on the ice rink decision. There is no evidence of it. All I can say with absolute certainty is that's not something that has happened in planning matters during the time I have been a member of the committee (since 1996).
Despite what you say, there has been a dramatic change in the way planning matters are dealt with since the mid 1980s - just has there has been in corporate governance. To my mind this is very much for the better. But that change does not damn everything done in the past.
It is fair to say that there are still difficulties. About a year and a half ago, a councillor spoke against a proposal on behalf (as was subsequently found out) of another councillor of the same party who lived next door. As permission was granted no harm was done, but it should not have happened.
The current Council Constitution has been imposed upon us by central government. There are some aspects which are better and some which are not. The Council seems to be meeting about once every 6 weeks or so, as do the Scrutiny Committees. There is no longer a "cycle" in the same was as there used to be, so I think your information is a bit out of date. When it was being formulated, one of the arguments I used in seeking to soften its effect was exactly what you said: that the Cabinet systen would restrict "the rights of ordinary members of the Council including Lib Dem members getting involved in policy and strategy". That is one reason why we do have 4 Scrutiny Committees with a clear remit.
|
