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 question set out below was received from a member of the public:
“In June 2019, councillors received a petition with 922 signatures from Welwyn residents, delivering a clear message that the possible development sites around Singlers Marsh should not go into the Local Plan. Receiving the petition in person, the then Council Leader was quoted as saying: “We will look at each specific case and do all we can to support residents.”
From a recent FOI response, we now know that, just one month later, a council officer was tasked with negotiating an MOU to sell part of Singlers Marsh to the developer who was promoting those sites. The purpose of the sale was to build a road across Singlers Marsh to enable development of those sites. As a reminder, Singlers Marsh is a Local Wildlife Site and a Local Nature Reserve, is listed as an Area of Archaeological Significance, and hosts an environmentally fragile and distressed chalk stream, for which WHBC receives Higher Level Environmental Stewardship payments from DEFRA. The developer confirmed that the discussion began only after receiving a clear signal from WHBC that a sale could be discussed. This indicates how unimportant all those environmental protections seem to be.
Recently, the current Council Leader confirmed that there is no policy bar to developing the land at Singlers Marsh, and that WHBC’s objection to the Village Green applications there is purely for fiduciary reasons. He has written that “the council is obliged by law to maintain best value” and “the council is obliged to object, on the basis that not to object may adversely affect future decisions with a fiduciary bearing.”
Many will feel that WHBC should only be objecting if there are reasonable grounds to do so, not for contrived reasons that suit an ulterior motive. It wastes time and money, as well as trust and goodwill.
WHBC’s public reasons for objecting to the applications are threefold: there is no need as the land is already well-managed; it believes the criteria for registration are not met; and there would be a “statutory conflict” with environmental obligations. The first point is purely subjective, is controversial within the Welwyn community, and has not been advanced in the inquiry. It is simply not relevant.
However, it is now crystal clear that WHBC’s objection to the Village Green applications for Singlers Marsh is nothing to do with its environmental situation, nor with any belief that the criteria for registration have not been met, and everything to do with maximising its income from selling part of the land for development.
There is therefore no “statutory conflict” at all. Realistically, becoming a Village Green will do far more to enhance the environment at Singlers Marsh than the status quo, given the inevitability that the status quo will lead to development, either in the current Local Plan or in later rounds of activity. WHBC should cease claiming the statutory conflict as a basis for its objection. It should also produce some credible evidence that the registration criteria have not been met, as they have not done so yet.
Despite having no actual grounds for objection, we know via FOI that WHBC has never sought external expert advice on the consequences of Singlers Marsh becoming a Village Green, other than procuring King’s Counsel at substantial expense to represent its pre-determined position at the official inquiry. Its willingness to spend over £100,000 on legal representation without knowing if it even has a viable case suggests that the sale value of the land is substantial.
Will WHBC now commit to fully review its position on the Village Green applications, using external expert advice, focussing solely on the environmental issues at stake at Singlers Marsh rather than its desire to make a profit, and administered by council officers who were not involved in negotiating the MOU with the developer?”
The response to the question is set out below:
“The Council has previously released a statement on Singler’s Marsh, and recently responded to a similar question at this Committee. Whilst tonight’s question includes additional inaccurate information, the circumstances of the case have not materially changed. The Council cannot comment any further until the current applications have been considered by Hertfordshire County Council.”