THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST STEVENAGE EXPANSION

Dyes Farm
Langley
Hitchin
Herts
SG4 7PQ

01438 315210

31 July 2000

The West of the A1 Committee
North Hertfordshire District Council
Council Offices
Gernon Road
Letchworth
Herts SG6 3J

Dear Committee Member

Advice to Councillors on Conduct

You have recently received advice from Andrea Hill with regard to the propriety of meeting with parties who have an interest in the proposed West of Stevenage Development.

I understand that it has been suggested that CASE fall within such categorisation and that accordingly Councillors should only meet with Councillors of the CASE Committee with an officer of NHDC present.

CASE consider that the question of access to Councillors to be of considerable importance and to have major democratic implications. We have been in extensive correspondence with Stuart Philps on this question and I had hoped that we would be able to resolve the issue by correspondence. Unfortunately Mr. Philps and Mrs. Hill have misunderstood the relevant codes of practice and have failed to correctly apply the law relating thereto. As a result the advice they have given you is both incorrect and unlawful. It represents an improper interference with the democratic rights of CASE and its numerous supporters.

I understand from Mr. Philps that Mrs .Hill’s advice is based upon a combination of the National Code of Local Government Conduct and NHDC’s own internal Code of Best Practice for Planning Application Proceedings.

Neither of these Codes support the advice that has been given. The National Code of Local Government Conduct makes it absolutely clear that a Member’s over-riding duty is to the whole local community (see paragraph 2) and that they have a special duty to their own constituents, including those who did not vote for them (see paragraph 3).

What the Code seeks to avoid is, not Councillors being influenced by the views of the local community or groups such as CASE, but against any suspicion of corruption or personal interest. Indeed, paragraph 3 of this code expressly states that Councillors are entitled to be strongly influenced by the views of others.

With regard to North Herts District Council’s internal Code of Best Practice for Planning Application Proceedings the position is very similar. This code relates to actual Planning Applications (see Paragraph 1.1). It correctly distinguishes between Councillors’ duties when dealing with developers and other interested parties (see paragraph 4) and when dealing with lobbying from individuals and organisations such as CASE (see paragraph 5).

With regard to meetings with "developers and other interested parties" the guidance states that where any meeting takes place an officer must always be present.

However, with regard to lobbying no such restriction applies. The guidance expressly states that "Where Councillors feel it is appropriate to do so, they may support a particular body of opinion,..." (see paragraph 5.2). Indeed, the guidance expressly permits Councillors to organise public support or opposition to a planning application and to give support to a particular body of opinion (see paragraphs 5.3 and 5.4). What Councillors are required to do is to avoid placing themselves in a position that could lead to the public thinking they are receiving preferential treatment for themselves, for friends or relatives or any firm or body with which they are personally connected (see paragraph 5.5).

CASE are a lobbying group who are articulating the massive local concerns relating to this proposed development. Any advice given by any of your NHDC officers to which is based on the idea that CASE are an interested party is misconceived and wrong. It is clear from the guides that what they are referring to are parties who have a direct financial interest in the development. This includes developers and the owners of land. It clearly does not include people and organisations who are concerned about the development but have no financial or interest in the development. In addition the restrictions are a clear breach of CASE’s supporters rights under Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights which is incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

CASE consider very strongly that it is important that we should have free access to our and our supporters elected representatives, and that Councillors of all parties should be free to meet with us should they think that it might be helpful. In the past we have been able to brief individual Councillors on the advice being received from NHDC officers. The purpose of these briefings is to enable Councillors to understand sufficiently the issues raised under the planning regulations so as to enable them to ask the right questions of NHDC officers. We are, of course, aware that there is sometimes a degree of resentment from NHDC officers with regard to Councillors receiving outside advice on matters which they consider their sole prerogative.

However, the value of enabling Councillors to understand the issues properly can be seen from the fact that CASE previously urged Councillors to press NHDC officers to take independent Legal Advice on two issues where we considered the advice being proffered by NHDC officers was wrong. The first was as to whether it was necessary to roll back the green belt boundary sufficient for 10,000 house was necessary in order for NHDC to be in "general conformity" or whether a lesser roll back was permissible. The second was as to whether the local Plan ought to be withdrawn in the light of the new PPG3. In respect of both these matters Leading Counsel gave detailed advice which confirmed CASE’s view of the law.

In the circumstances, if you do wish to meet with CASE to discuss any aspect relating to West of Stevenage you should feel free to do so. If any further attempt is made by any NHDC officer to try to restrict or limit discussions between CASE and Councillors, we are prepared to have the matter resolved in Court by applying for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Yours faithfully

Tim Akeroyd

Chairman