“On Thursday 17 March 2016, EDDCs Scrutiny Committee finally examined what went on in March last year when, at the 11th hour, two changes to the draft Local Plan (LP) were voted through. Using clear criteria, Officers had compiled a list of ‘sustainable’ villages, which excluded Dunkeswell and Chardstock. However, at the final Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting for the LP, Dunkeswell was added to the list and at the extra-ordinary Council meeting to finalise the LP, Chardstock was added in. These actions were taken without any request for Officers to verify the evidence supporting the changes.

The decision to include Dunkeswell was made on the suggestion by the then-ward member that a school was going to be built. This was not the case. Arguments made in support of Chardstock by the Deputy Leader Andrew Moulding, on behalf of the ward member, the Leader of the Council Paul Diviani, were also erroneous.

It seems that Planning Officers did not think it was necessary (or even appropriate) to check the information stated by the then ward member for Dunkeswell, despite there being time to do this before the Council meeting. Even more interesting was the assertion by the Councils’ Legal Advisor that it is not the role of any officer (including the CEO Mark Williams) to “…withhold decision-making powers from Councillors” (1). This may be true but surely Officers must give clear advice to Councillors, especially if a proposed decision might be unsound. In this case the CEO did not provide clear advice (2) to full Council that they were being asked to vote on amendments which were both against Planning Officer advice and based on information that had not been verified. He did not suggest that Members might prefer to ask for the information to be confirmed before voting or that making a decision under these circumstances was inadvisable.

The urge to get the draft LP signed off seems to have overridden any caution that making last minute changes might be unsound. Fortunately, in these cases, the Inspector did not uphold the changes and neither village is now in the ‘sustainable’ list. Unfortunately there have been consequences for Chardstock and development was approved on the understanding that the village was to be classified as ‘sustainable’.

So, apparently, Members can make unfounded and unconfirmed assertions and if other Members accept what they are told, they can vote through changes to a document as vital as the LP, contrary to the result of proper process and Officer advice without any difficulty. In the end the Council is accountable for its decisions and they should be evidence-based, but the only recourse for communities affected by an error is a Judicial Review (JR). If someone can afford to bring a JR and wins, the result will be a cost to the Council – which is our money. There are no sanctions for any Members who may present incorrect information to bring such a result about.

Can this happen again?

Yes, almost certainly. In the short term the Villages Development Plan is being finalised. In the medium term the LP will be up for review. So there will always be opportunities for incorrect information to be used to sway the content of development plans.

So what can we do?

I suppose the only thing we can do is to be alert to events like this and make efforts to call them out as they happen; to request that Officers confirm what is being suggested and to ask for any vote to be deferred until this has happened. We have to insist that all decisions are based on sound evidence.

The lesson for Members has to be to not take anything at face value, no matter who says it. Put the interests of residents first, follow evidence-based advice and do not be swayed by persuasive speakers. And perhaps wonder about the motives behind such actions.