My letters to the Dorset Officer for Democracy

Email dated 20th February 2024 to

 

Jonathan Mair,  Dorset Council Corporate Director (Legal and Democratic Services Monitoring Officer)

Copies:

Matt Prosser, Dorset Council Chief Executive

Spencer Flower, Dorset Council Leader

David Northam, Weymouth Councillor and Steering Group Chair Neighbourhood Plan

David Harris, Weymouth Council Leader

Jane Biscombe, Weymouth Council Chief Executive

Louie O’Leary, Dorset Councillor

Peter Dickenson, Weymouth Councillor

Joanna Dickenson, Weymouth Councillor

 

Dear Mr Mair

 

You will recall that last year the Steering Group of Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan were considering referring yourself to the Ombudsman for the way in which you handled their complaint.  Cllr Northam, chair of the SG, thought of you as: “weird what is the point of a Democratic officer?”

 

The deputy chair of the SG, Colin Marsh, thought of you: “You know what they say about protecting your own”.  From this I understand that they think you are biased and acting in a party-political way as a senior officer of a Conservative majority county council against a Liberal Democrat majority town council.  Unsettling for you, I imagine, and horrible for residents to read about the shenanigans going on, which just bring so much into disrepute.

 

Please read the website I have created at www.weymouthneighbourhoodplandemocracy.org.uk

because I am so appalled at what has been going on with democracy here in Weymouth.

 

Happily, for you, you did not prosecute the Preston councillors for their “lies” as expressed by Cllr Harris, the leader of WTC. Now that the dust has settled, I can see as a resident of Preston that the “lies” were spot on in their truth. The “lies” were that 500 houses were going to be built in Preston but the truth is that 570 houses have been put into the WNP, 480 Budmouth/Brackendown/Wyke Oliver and 90 at Old Tip. That is an increase of 14% over estimate and we all know that developers hardly ever do what they say on these developments.  Just such a shame that senior councillors and town council leaders bandy around these prejudicial words and disrespect both each other and employees of Dorset Council.  What a way to present themselves to their constituents!  The “lies” to me appear to be with Cllr Harris and I am utterly shocked at the misinformation played out by the SG, by irresponsible Weymouth councillors in their Lib-Dem publicity of “highly inaccurate” and the denial of democracy.

 

When you read the full thread on the website concerning you, I hope you will take my point that what Cllr Northam was asking of you was to endorse his removal of democracy from 573 residents in the NP.  You took it more narrowly and just reacted to the complaints (which I have not seen) against the Preston councillors, some of them town councillors and some of them county councillors.   Would you please now explain to me what is your point and whether you will concern yourself about 573 residents being suppressed in this way and replaced with a sham of a subsequent consultation?  You will see that Cllr Northam then tried Locality after you but also chose not to follow their guidance and re-survey the 573 in the light of developments.  Much as the SG does not follow the guidance of “How to work with landowners”, a document they refer me to when it suits them to work with developers but not when they need to provide transparency to their constituents.

 

As Mr Marsh says, this will “mushroom” and I hope you will act decisively now because down the road this may well cost Dorset Council far more.  Let me say I sat through the Incinerator public enquiry and was maddened at the thought of what that was costing Dorset (and by consequence, me) when democracy had spoken out so forcefully.  The May local elections will have taken place before the referendum on the WNP.  Assuming it is passed in referendum, the inspector and Dorset will have to rule on its validity, but I am quite happy to attempt to take this matter to Judicial Review because town councils simply must not be allowed to ride rough-shod over their constituents like this.

 

The SG admit that they are not reaching enough people, and this has been consistent throughout.  WTC tell me that a mailing has been done to every household and, when I say that I have not received it, they blame Royal Mail.  At a show of hands last night at a packed meeting in Preston, no-one said they had had this document. With door-to-door political leafletting, the January 2023 meeting was well in excess of 200 people; 436 comments were placed, (predominantly Preston?), in the few days left after that meeting before consultations closed, as opposed to just 137 from the whole of Weymouth in the months before from the efforts of the SG.  I counted about 120 people at the autumn public meeting and that was poor because the leafletting was aborted out of respect to Cllr Ferrari, whose details appeared on the leaflet.  Over 150 people attended this third public meeting last night but when the might of WTC calls a full-day consultation in Preston, they succeed in attracting just 9 people.

 

I am appealing to you because you will see that as a victim in this matter I can only appeal for review by my perpetrators!  Please restore democracy.  The latest entry on the WTC website says:

“WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group is working with the appointed planning consultant to analyse the wealth of responses from individuals and statutory consultees who responded to the consultation. Further discussion is taking place with the statutory consultees including Dorset Council on the responses. “

 

These last responses have not been published.  My point is that the SG is not analysing 573 of this “wealth of responses” and so statutory consultation with Dorset cannot be taking place lawfully.  I will be asking the Dorset Echo to publish this as an open letter to Dorset Council but obviously will give you time to reply so that your response can be included for balance.

Yours sincerely,

Glenn van der Pas, Overcombe, Weymouth

 

========================================================================================================

 

 

Email dated 26th February to the same recipients above

Dear Mr Mair

 

Further to my recent email, I can say that I have had 202 visitors to my website with 640 page views since launch on 14 February.  It’s good that people are reading this at length and in-depth. The Deputy Chair of the SG did attend the public meeting but chose not to speak or refute any of the points that were being made.  Let’s hope he is included in the 202 above.  The feedback has been this:

 

  1. Those very few of the 573 disenfranchised people who knew about the “drop-in events” in August 2023 did not attend because they knew everything they needed to know, and it was not publicised as an engagement event where policy would be made as a result.  One should question whether it is proper for the SG to accept contributions from the developers to forward their profit motives, but the 1st 2 boards put on display are shown in the attachment.  At that point it became clear that it was a public engagement from which feedback would be obtained and yet there would be no “formal consultation with the public” until Autumn 2023.  Yet policy has been formed from these events and has been used to achieve the developers’ aims of overturning Green Space into development land through use of the WNP. On 14 August 2023 Bellway wrote: “achieving early delivery via the neighbourhood planning process”. The advertising poster is also shown as “engagement events” where people could “find out about……at drop-in sessions”.  Cllr Northam is quoted as saying publicly: "So, come to one of our events and find out more about what’s involved before the draft plan moves to the next stage; a formal public consultation in October.”  What is the public supposed to make of this?  Was it designed to be a travesty to be shown to comply with the Locality advice to “re-survey”?

 

  1. You should rule that the 3rd engagement ending at end of January 2023 is unlawful because 573 views were excluded.

 

  1. The next lawful engagement from which policy can be formed can only be taken from the survey which took place formally between October and December 2023.  As Cllr Northam said, this public consultation would not commence until October 2023 so you should rule that the August soundings purported to have been taken were unlawful to form policy and should be withdrawn.  The 1450 odd comments from December 2023 certainly outweigh the 30 odd from August……

 

  1. The way that the public surveys were structured is certainly unhelpful:  in both engagements citizens were only allowed to reply to fixed and pre-conceived questions posed and there was no opportunity for free expression on the WNP.  More worryingly, citizens could only respond on one device or from one email address so it is possible that many, many residents could not respond (e.g. partners and adult children), as in the case of myself and my wife.  I could respond but she could not.  WTC say this was to prevent multiple opinions being submitted but I put it to you that it is again terrible democracy.  In addition, as an online survey, no one found it possible to retain a copy of what they had submitted either.  If the surveys are to re-run, respondents should be asked to give their names and addresses so that abuse can be monitored.  You will see from my complaint that WTC hide behind ICO rules for refusing to re-survey the 573.

 

  1. I fear that some of the members of the SG may not be aware of the Dorset reasons for turning down these sites in the past.  Nothing has changed in the meantime to make them any more suitable. In fact, global warming further condemns them. Misinformation or untruths have been published in the SEA when the facts have long been known at WTC through resident complaints.  It is a shame that so much political capital and well-meant effort (in recognition of which WTC presented a rose-bowl award to the SG last week) of the SG is being expended in this party-political spat. It risks the failure of the whole WNP as a result and challenges that may delay it by years.  I see you were admitted in 1992 so I hope you will be around to see this through.  I spent two years as a litigant in person in front of Sir John Chadwick PC in Chancery and Queen’s Bench, so a Judicial Review holds no terror for me after that.  I made a bit of legal history and was all over the nationals and BBC TV; I also had the pleasure of getting Sir John to publicly admonish a top barrister for an ‘abuse of the process of the court’ so I know an abuse of process when I see one.  Happily, I could retire after that at 42 and use some of the money for one of my daughters to retrain in law following my own experiences!

 

Yours sincerely

Glenn van der Pas

========================================================================================================

 

Email from Mr Mair dated 19 April 2024

 

Thank you for your two emails and I apologise that this response is long overdue. 

 

I do recall the issues centred upon the emerging Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan.  I am not particularly troubled about the remarks that have been made by Cllr Northam.  People have said far worse about me and my reading of the remarks is that he was more frustrated about the limitations of my role than expressing a personal criticism or calling me weird.

 

I have read your emails carefully and at the heart of this seems to be a dissatisfaction with the way in which the steering group for the neighbourhood plan is going about its business.  The nature of a neighbourhood plan is that its preparation is led locally by the town council (within a framework contained in regulations) and not led by Dorset Council.  The town clerk advises the steering group on the process that they need to follow in order to arrive at a draft plan to be consulted upon. 

 

Ultimately it is for Dorset Council to “make” the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan so that it becomes part of the statutory development plan for that area.  That decision is one for Dorset Council’s Cabinet to make at a meeting held in public.  Before that can happen the emerging plan must be the subject of research and consultation by the steering group and an independent examination of the plan by an examiner appointed under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.  Subject to the examiners assessment of the soundness of the plan and the agreement of the Cabinet portfolio holder for planning it will then be the subject of a referendum.  There is therefore significant work to be undertaken, significant consultation, an independent examination and a referendum to test the emerging plan before it can be made by Dorset Council.  This gives me confidence that the emerging plan will be properly tested. 

 

Not only is the steering group at an early stage in plan preparation but the regulations do not provide for any review of the work of the steering group (who you call your perpetrators) by me as Monitoring Officer.  My intention is to leave the steering group, advised by the town clerk to follow the 2012 regulations and arrive at a plan that can be tested through an independent examination and put to a referendum.

=======================================================================================================

My reply to Mr Mair dated 25 April 2024

 

Dear Mr Mair,

 

Thank you for that.

 

No, the heart of the matter is that 573 Preston Residents have been denied Democracy.  The Steering Group have complete freedom with how they go about their business, and you are right, it will be up to the people of Weymouth in a referendum to decide whether they have been well served or not.

 

My point to you is that Democracy should be restored, and I would have thought that was part of your function.  Neighbourhood Plans are “bottom-up” and not “top-down”; in the case of Weymouth there are repeated exhortations from the Steering Group to get involved and comment.  The problem is, the chairman is a strong, LibDem Councillor who is using the NP to achieve the LibDem primary ambition in Weymouth of more Affordable Housing, at whatever cost, including the denial of Democracy.  The two sites in question have been redesignated from Green Space to Development Land as a fiat and against all local opinion.

 

Please say whether you have the authority, or not, to oblige the Steering Group to rerun the 3rd Engagement Consultation from January 2023.  If you do not, all well and good.  If you do, then please reconsider.  All I am asking for is that the opinion of the people should be shown.  Sure, the Steering Group can then still decide to proceed against this opinion, and they will have to explain down the road why they did that.  Now, however, they are basking with a flagrantly unlawful action.  They sought advice from Locality about their actions and so it is even more painful that the taxpayer should have to pay for Locality’s existence and advice just for local politicians to decide also not to follow that advice.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Glenn van der Pas

========================================================================================================