The latest full council meeting was held on 28th September. There was a big turnout from the public (around 45, which is a lot more than usual), lots of interventions from Green councillors, and it didn’t finish until 12.30am.
During the proceedings Green councillors tabled three positive and well considered amendments but the Lib/Lab coalition voted en bloc against them all.
Our first intervention was a proposed amendment to the Skerningham design code – see more about this below.
The Lib/Lab coalition claim to support greater cross-party cooperation and consultative policy development. Yet they brought forward a motion to set up a Scrutiny Committee Working Group to examine council decision making and scrutiny processes, with no advance warning or consultation.
Worse still, the Labour group thought it acceptable to pack this working group with five of their members out of a total of ten.
Our second proposed amendment was to correct this injustice by giving each party two seats on this working group and also include the one independent councillor. This was blocked by Labour and the Lib Dems (despite the Lib Dems saying that they agreed with our position).
A party with only 32% of the popular vote (Labour) thought it acceptable to tell a party with 18% (Green) that this was balanced! The reason given was that scrutiny committees reflect the make-up of the council and they wanted to preserve the current system of allocating seats. But the fact that the council has dysfunctional processes is the reason reform is so badly needed. This gives us no confidence in their actual commitment to cross party collaboration.
Our third amendment was to add to the terms of reference of this working group. We proposed that it should also include the consideration of alternative democratic decision-making structures. This would have provided the Council with an opportunity to make the process more open and inclusive, allowing a wider group of councillors to be involved and bringing these discussions into a public forum. This ammendment was also voted down by the administration.
Our Green councillors will continue to fight for positive change in the council and we know this has the backing of hundreds of our members and supporters in the Borough. The high public turnout at the meeting and their carefully considered questions demonstrate this.
If we could keep up this level of visible public support it will put pressure on the ruling group to engage more meaningfully with the sensible, sustainable policies, and ways of working that Greens promote. If you can’t come to council meetings you can still contribute by writing to your councillors, sharing relevant messages on social media and writing to the Northern Echo letters page. If any member or supporter wants help with any of this, drop us an email.
The latest on the Skerningham development
The Skerningham housing development took another step forward at the council meeting but not before Green Councillors had tried to safeguard the woodland area and members of the public had given the scheme a grilling.
The Design Code, which gives the developers guidelines on style and quality, was finally approved at the meeting after a long process of consultation and amendments. Harrowgate Hill Green Councillor Richard Lawley proposed one final amendment to specifically prevent a road from cutting through the area’s woodland and to make it safe for pedestrians, cyclists, and others.
The amendment was carefully worded to add clarity and would have gone some way to give confidence to the public about the intention to protect the woodlands. Despite confirmation that our amendment did not conflict with the local plan nor the design code, Labour chose to block it and the amendment was defeated.
Council Deputy Leader Chris McEwan said the current wording, advising that the road is to avoid woodland “as much as possible” was sufficient. It was apparent that the public, who came close to outnumbering the councillors, did not agree.
Their questions were answered by Cllr McEwan amicably but with little further light being shone on the issues, though he did say there had been no formal approach from Darlington FC about a new stadium in Skerningham.
Questions from the public included:- Why it was necessary to build so many relatively expensive houses on beautiful, rural land when Darlington already builds nearly four times the Government-advised number of houses each year and the real need is for small, affordable homes near existing facilities.
- Whether account had been taken of the sensitivity surrounding the woodland site where at least three full-body burials had taken place among the extremely rare black poplar trees.
- Why, when it came to calculating potential pollution impact, occupancy figures predicted were only 1.1 newcomers to the area in each house – half the current Darlington average of 2.2 occupants per house – greatly reducing pollution protection costs for the developers.
- What happened in 2015 to make the council change its mind between first ruling that Skerningham was unsuitable for housing and then, only a few months later, approving such use.
- Does the council have no concern for the impact on the area’s multifarious flora and fauna, which includes large numbers of critically endangered or “at risk” species, particularly if the woodland is bisected by a road.
The next stage of the Skerningham process will be for the builders to present a masterplan and phasing proposal which must be put out for consultation and then get council approval. A formal planning application can then be made. No doubt, controversy will resume.