Councillors criticise behind-closed-doors traveller site decision

Richard Evans, Local Democracy Reporter

A row has broken out over plans for a permanent residential gypsy and traveller site at an undisclosed location in north Wales.

Members of Denbighshire County Council’s communities scrutiny committee met for a special meeting at County Hall, Ruthin, on Wednesday afternoon to review a delegated decision by a lead officer to submit a planning application for the site at an undisclosed location near Prestatyn.

The decision was called in under the authority’s scrutiny procedure.

The exact location of the site is  to remain undisclosed, due to the risk of revealing “information relating to a particular individual”.

Five or more backbench councillors initiated the call in of the decision which was made under delegated authority by the head of housing and communities on July 9.

Several councillors maintained that they should have been part of the decision-making process before the planning application was submitted.

Prestatyn south west councillor Gareth Sandilands said there had been a “lack of member engagement” with councillors and town and community councils despite “significant local implications” for the proposals.

He said there had been “insufficient democratic scrutiny”, “a lack of public transparency” and public engagement, and a significant change of use for the land which had previously been identified for community housing.

He also revealed the land was council-owned, brownfield land.

Cllr Sandilands argued the decision was given to a recently appointed heads of service who had “not been involved historically with the assessment site selection process”.

The Prestatyn councillor said the site had “a complex history and level of public interest” and that the site “goes back well over a decade” affecting “thousands of people”.

He added: “Reputational community impact – as I’ve alluded to before, this proposal is likely to attract significant public interest so substantial that it has the potential to affect the confidence of (in) the council’s decision-making process as a whole.”

Prestatyn east councillor Andrea Tomlin said she was a co-signatory of the call in. She said: “We were heard but not listened to is the feeling. I believe such an impactful and sensitive decision upon the community and the authority’ profile and one which is likely to attract unfavourable comment in the media should not be delegated to an officer and must come back and be made by members. This is a key decision.”

Corporate director Tony Ward said: “I discussed it with Heidi (McDougall/head of housing). We discussed it at CT. We discussed it at the cabinet briefing, and I felt and still feel it was an appropriate action for Heidi to take as the head of service to submit this planning application.

“I suppose in high-level terms, I considered this to be, in terms of the whole process, this to be the more operational aspect of it, the act of submitting a planning application, but the decision around whether or not this is a suitable site is the political decision in my view.”

He added: “The key decision and the key political decision needs to take place in planning committee. So in terms of that whole question of democracy and transparency, that’s clearly what happens in the process of when it goes to planning committee.”

Cllr Gwyneth Ellis then asked Mr Ward if, with hindsight, elected members should have been part of the decision to submit the application, given “so many local members had called it in”.

Mr Ward said the call in was a “legitimate part of the process” calling the call in an “appropriate action” if members had “concerns” about a delegated decision.

Cllr James Elson asked if the council had been under pressure from Welsh Government to fulfil its requirement to provide a gypsy site.

Mr Ward said there hadn’t been any pressure.

Corporate director Gary Williams said: “Recommendations are what they are, recommendations. But, clearly if a strong recommendation comes from scrutiny committee then, both the decision maker and the cabinet have to consider it.”

The committee voted in favour of referring the decision back to the head of housing, with the further recommendation it be referred back as a “key decision” to be made by cabinet.

The vote included a second recommendation that the scrutiny committee recommends to cabinet that “cabinet should be the decision maker in respect of the submission of a planning application”.

The decision for the request of the review was unanimous.

---

Get more trusted Welsh news

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.