Up to thirty minutes will be made available for questions from members of the public on issues relating to the work of the Committee and to receive any petitions.
Minutes:
The following question was received and the Chairman responded:
Welwyn Hatfield Council has not followed due Process in Panshanger Aerodrome in the Local Plan or privately in that they were maleficent in permitting disclosure where they were not permitted to do so, as I was not consulted either privately or publicly where you divulged pertinent information from a private and closed meeting between Myself and Thames Water which would favour the development for housing and gravel extraction of Panshanger aerodrome to the company mentioned in the 2013 public question who represents both land owners of Panshanger aerodrome, homes England and Mariposa whereby the data provided was submitted as evidence in the local plan on behalf of both Panshanger aerodrome landowners making their local plan application favourable for development and heralding in Herts County Councils potential plan to gravel extract Panshanger aerodrome and making Herts County Councils plan to extract minerals also favourable; Thames Water updating their position statement following the private meeting between Myself and Thames Water on August 4th 2017 using the unfinished and unagreed minutes which WHBC took down in the private meeting as a note taker and in that unfinished state would make the Litchfield submission for the landowners and TWU’s update of the position statement favourable in the light of building the 650 housing and gravel extraction of Panshanger aerodrome was also maleficent; and the need to construct the required super sewer which that course of action would negate by providing the incorrect minutes and ushering in this proposed development which TWU’s infrastructure manager wrongly believed that the super sewer was mentioned as a mistake in the 2009 water cycle study and which consequently was an error in all WHBC Infrastructure Delivery Plans since 2012; he made a catastrophic professional mistake and one as the north London infrastructure manager should have known was incorrect but carried on as if it was fact, in the meeting. Due process corporately by WHBC and its partners was not followed by way of maleficent process. The actual full minutes which were not recorded by the WHBC note take would have seen Panshanger aerodrome dropped from the local plan and dissolve any housing or gravel extraction plan and Why did this council operate in the maleficence behaviour stated above by not following due process were the community were involved and would seem our time defending the aerodrome has been abused by this corrupt behaviour?’
Answer
The Council’s answer to the question previously asked in November 2013 remains ‘no’.
In response to the question about due process and in particular the minutes of your meeting with Thames Water and the Council on 4th August 2017, the Council responds as it did in its earlier email to you dated 10th April 2019, as follows:
You refer to the 4th August meeting as a ‘private and closed’ meeting. Initially draft minutes were exchanged between Council officers, Thames Water and yourself, and there were three draft versions in existence. No minutes of this meeting were finally agreed and none were published by this Council at that stage, nor were they supplied directly by us to any other external party. The draft minutes did however effectively become public when you submitted them to the Local Plan examination in June 2018 as Appendices 7, 8 and 9 to your hearing statement. Clearly any external parties were then able to view the minutes before the Local Plan examination hearing session on 27th June 2018.
As to the adequacy of the sewerage infrastructure to serve any potential housing development at the Panshanger site, we do not yet have the Local Plan Inspector’s Report, though having heard directly from Thames Water at the hearing he seemed to accept that there was no substantive sewerage infrastructure issue in relation to Panshanger which could not be satisfactorily addressed as part of the normal planning and development process.