Fear of Women Displays More splits in Northumberland Conservatives as bullying rages on and on and on!

Another empty seat has been created on Northumberland’s single party cabinet as the factions move further apart and rub each other up in a similar fashion to the world’s tectonic plates.

Accusations have been leveled and support garnered on known Tory members social media sites praising and chinning up Cramlington Conservative stalwart Councillor Christine Dunbar who is reputed to have lodged complaints against another Conservative and accused aggressor of women political candidates, Paul Scott, whom we here at murky believe sits in the Peterservative and Jacksonist party, an ultra-right wing gang currently leaning on both the Leader, Glen Sanderson’s  shaky mob and the Cramlington squad to bring dark politics back to the fore in Northumberland County Council.

This episode shows that Northumberland Conservatives wish to take time back to the 1940’s, after the second world war when women who had played a fantastic part in the war effort were severed from their new jobs (which could have become careers) and forced back behind the kitchen sinks in case they showed that the high level of productivity they attained during that period was expected to be maintained by men! The fears of those men live on in the Tory Party locally as many of them are from a farming or masonic lodge backgrounds where old fashioned manly values are held tight.

The stories leaking from County Hall regarding bullying and intimidation are growing stronger and it's the public who sponsor this septic Council through tax and levy’s and they have not been told the truth about why the Council has failed to deliver Best Value for the last five years nor yet released a credible news item regarding the mass exodus of Directors of Advance Northumberland and the company model suddenly being changed when the HMRC jackboots began tramping towards their filing cabinets!

What a carry on!

https://realnorthumberlandmurky.blogspot.com/2021/04/paul-scott-who-works-for-ian-levy-mp-in.html

Still no plan in place for Northumberland’s Future after five years of Tory rule.

 

July 2017 BRIEFING​ ​NOTE and advice on removal of core strategy document in 2017 prepared for Tory Secret Cabinet

Ignoring this advice has caused untold angst for residents of New Hartley who did not have any protection in place when the Tories led them up the Garden Path!

 

 

Northumberland​ ​Local​ ​Plan​ ​Core​ ​Strategy 

 

● The​ ​Draft​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​was​ ​submitted​ ​to​ ​Government​ ​in​ ​early​ ​April​ ​for​ ​independent examination​ ​with​ ​the​ ​hearing​ ​sessions​ ​currently​ ​scheduled​ ​to​ ​commence​ ​in​ ​late September​ ​2017.​ ​Further​ ​information​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Inspector​ ​is​ ​due​ ​in​ ​June​ ​and​ ​July​ ​on the​ ​timetabling​ ​and​ ​content​ ​of​ ​the​ ​hearing​ ​sessions. 

 

● Relatively​ ​minor​ ​“major​ ​modifications”​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​could​ ​be​ ​presented​ ​at​ ​the examination​ ​as​ ​suggested​ ​amendments​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Inspector​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​and,​ ​if​ ​found 

acceptable,​ ​would​ ​be​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​consultation​ ​as​ ​part​ ​of​ ​any​ ​other​ ​main​ ​modifications 

required​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Inspector.​ ​There​ ​may​ ​however​ ​be​ ​the​ ​need​ ​to​ ​request​ ​a​ ​delay​ ​in​ ​the 

examination​ ​process​ ​so​ ​that​ ​such​ ​amendments​ ​can​ ​be​ ​fully​ ​considered​ ​by​ ​the 

Council. 

 

● More​ ​fundamental​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​a​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the 

overall ​ ​housing​ ​numbers​ ​and​ ​removal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​proposed​ ​Green​ ​Belt​ ​deletions​ ​for 

example,​ ​could​ ​potentially​ ​be​ ​a​ ​change​ ​in​ ​the​ ​overall ​ ​strategic​ ​direction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Plan 

requiring​ ​a​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​from​ ​the​ ​examination​ ​process. 

 

● Should​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​Plan​ ​be​ ​required,​ ​a​ ​request​ ​would​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​made​ ​to 

Government​ ​for​ ​it​ ​to​ ​be​ ​withdrawn​ ​and​ ​advice​ ​sought​ ​on​ ​what​ ​stage​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​would 

need​ ​to​ ​go​ ​back​ ​to​ ​e.g.​ ​re-publish​ ​under​ ​Regulation​ ​19​ ​(Pre-Submission​ ​Stage),​ ​or 

go​ ​further​ ​back​ ​to​ ​reconsult​ ​under​ ​Regulation​ ​18​ ​(Issues​ ​and​ ​Options​ ​Stage) 

 

Process​ ​for​ ​withdrawing​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy 

 

The​ ​Head​ ​of​ ​Planning​ ​Services​ ​has​ ​recently​ ​spoken​ ​to​ ​DCLG​ ​concerning​ ​the​ ​process​ ​for withdrawing​ ​a​ ​submitted​ ​Plan​ ​and​ ​the​ ​following​ ​advice​ ​has​ ​been​ ​received​ ​from​ ​DCLG’s​ ​legal 

team​ ​on​ ​two​ ​specific​ ​questions​ ​raised: 

 

(1)​ ​Can​ ​an​ ​LPA​ ​withdraw​ ​their​ ​plan​ ​once​ ​it​ ​has​ ​been​ ​submitted​ ​for​ ​examination? 

  

The​ ​short​ ​answer​ ​is​ ​yes​ ​–​ ​s.22​ ​PCPA​ ​2004​ ​allows​ ​an​ ​LDD​ ​to​ ​be​ ​withdrawn​ ​at​ ​any​ ​time​ ​before​ ​it​ ​is​ ​adopted. Worth​ ​being​ ​aware​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Localism​ ​Act​ ​2011​ ​repealed​ ​subsection​ ​(2)​ ​of​ ​s.22​ ​which​ ​only​ ​allowed​ ​an​ ​LPA to​ ​withdraw​ ​a​ ​DPD​ ​which​ ​had​ ​been​ ​submitted​ ​for​ ​examination​ ​if​ ​the​ ​examiner​ ​recommends​ ​withdrawal,​ ​or 

the​ ​SoS​ ​directs​ ​withdrawal. 

  

(2)​ ​Once​ ​the​ ​plan​ ​has​ ​been​ ​withdrawn,​ ​does​ ​the​ ​LPA​ ​effectively​ ​have​ ​to​ ​‘start​ ​again’​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Reg​ ​18 consultation​ ​stage? 

  

Once​ ​the​ ​LPA​ ​has​ ​withdrawn​ ​the​ ​plan,​ ​they​ ​are​ ​required​ ​(in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​Reg​ ​27​ ​of​ ​the​ ​2012​ ​Regs)​ ​to make​ ​available​ ​a​ ​statement​ ​of​ ​that​ ​fact​ ​at​ ​their​ ​offices​ ​and​ ​on​ ​their​ ​website,​ ​send​ ​notification​ ​to​ ​the​ ​general 

consultation​ ​bodies​ ​and​ ​remove​ ​al ​ ​the​ ​local​ ​plan​ ​documents​ ​from​ ​their​ ​website. 

  

The​ ​statutory​ ​provisions​ ​are​ ​silent​ ​as​ ​to​ ​the​ ​consequences​ ​of​ ​withdrawing​ ​a​ ​plan.​ ​PPG,​ ​at​ ​paragraph​ ​025, states​ ​“Following​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Local​ ​Plan​ ​from​ ​examination​ ​a​ ​Local​ ​Planning​ ​Authority​ ​should​ ​consider 

whether​ ​to​ ​republish​ ​under​ ​regulation​ ​19​ ​or​ ​reconsult​ ​under​ ​regulation​ ​18​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Town​ ​and​ ​Country Planning​ ​(Local​ ​Planning)​ ​(England)​ ​Regulations​ ​2012​ ​and​ ​what​ ​matters​ ​this​ ​republication​ ​or​ ​reconsultation 

should​ ​address”. 

 

On​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​above​ ​advice​ ​it​ ​is​ ​possible​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​to​ ​withdraw​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy from​ ​examination​ ​to​ ​al ow​ ​for​ ​a​ ​review​ ​and​ ​further​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​be​ ​made.​ ​Given​ ​that submission​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​for​ ​examination​ ​was​ ​endorsed​ ​by​ ​Ful ​ ​Council​ ​less​ ​than​ ​six months​ ​ago​ ​however,​ ​advice​ ​from​ ​Legal​ ​Services​ ​is​ ​that​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​document​ ​would similarly​ ​require​ ​Full ​ ​Council​ ​approval.​ ​To​ ​kickstart​ ​the​ ​withdrawal​ ​process​ ​a​ ​motion​ ​would be​ ​required,​ ​signed​ ​by​ ​at​ ​least​ ​9​ ​members,​ ​requesting​ ​the​ ​previous​ ​decision​ ​agreeing​ ​to submission​ ​of​ ​the​ ​document​ ​to​ ​Government​ ​for​ ​examination​ ​to​ ​be​ ​called​ ​back​ ​to​ ​Full  Council. 

 

Key​ ​Issues​ ​to​ ​Consider 

 

● There​ ​is​ ​a​ ​need​ ​for​ ​discussions​ ​with​ ​DCLG​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Planning​ ​Inspectorate​ ​on​ ​how​ ​to proceed​ ​should​ ​fundamental​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​be​ ​sought,​ ​including a​ ​discussion​ ​on​ ​implications​ ​for​ ​potential​ ​Government​ ​intervention. 

 

● DCLG​ ​have​ ​offered​ ​a​ ​Ministerial​ ​visit​ ​to​ ​speak​ ​to​ ​the​ ​new​ ​Administration​ ​about​ ​the 

potential​ ​scenarios​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​but​ ​this​ ​would​ ​not​ ​be​ ​arranged​ ​until 

after​ ​the​ ​General​ ​Election​ ​on​ ​8th​ ​June.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​considered​ ​important​ ​that​ ​this​ ​discussion 

takes​ ​place​ ​at​ ​the​ ​earliest​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​inform​ ​future​ ​decisions​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy. 

 

● The​ ​timing​ ​of​ ​any​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​is​ ​critical​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​forthcoming 

public​ ​inquiries​ ​during​ ​June​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​Highthorn​ ​Surface​ ​Mine​ ​and​ ​a​ ​proposed 

Barratts​ ​housing​ ​site​ ​at​ ​New​ ​Hartley.​ ​Withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​during​ ​and/or​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​the 

end​ ​of​ ​these​ ​public​ ​inquiries​ ​would​ ​throw​ ​the​ ​inquiry​ ​processes​ ​into​ ​disarray,​ ​likely 

resulting​ ​in​ ​an​ ​adjournment​ ​of​ ​both​ ​inquiries​ ​and​ ​potential y​ ​weakening​ ​the​ ​Council’s 

position​ ​in​ ​both​ ​cases,​ ​particularly​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​New​ ​Hartley​ ​where​ ​housing​ ​land 

supply​ ​issues​ ​are​ ​paramount​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Council’s​ ​defence​ ​of​ ​its​ ​refusal​ ​reasons. 

Tactical y​ ​it​ ​is​ ​therefore​ ​considered​ ​by​ ​Officers​ ​that​ ​any​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​withdraw​ ​the​ ​Core 

Strategy​ ​should​ ​not​ ​be​ ​taken​ ​until​ ​after​ ​both​ ​inquiries​ ​have​ ​finished​ ​(currently 

anticipated​ ​to​ ​be​ ​21st​ ​June)​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​complications​ ​this​ ​would​ ​otherwise​ ​present​ ​for 

the​ ​public​ ​inquiries.​ ​The​ ​Planning​ ​Inspectorate/Secretary​ ​of​ ​State​ ​would​ ​stil ​ ​have​ ​to 

have​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​any​ ​withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​in​ ​making​ ​their​ ​final​ ​decisions, 

and​ ​would​ ​possibly​ ​seek​ ​additional​ ​evidence​ ​from​ ​al ​ ​parties​ ​involved​ ​on​ ​the 

implications​ ​of​ ​the​ ​withdrawal​ ​to​ ​their​ ​respective​ ​cases,​ ​but​ ​this​ ​would​ ​be​ ​most​ ​likely 

dealt​ ​with​ ​through​ ​an​ ​exchange​ ​of​ ​written​ ​representations​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​re-opening​ ​the 

public​ ​inquiries. 

 

● It​ ​is​ ​important​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​being​ ​sought​ ​by​ ​the​ ​new​ ​Administration​ ​in 

relation​ ​to​ ​the​ ​overal ​ ​housing​ ​figures,​ ​housing​ ​distribution​ ​across​ ​the​ ​County​ ​and​ ​the 

impacts​ ​on​ ​key​ ​strategic​ ​site​ ​al ocations​ ​including​ ​those​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Green​ ​Belt.​ ​This​ ​wil  

ultimately​ ​dictate​ ​how​ ​far​ ​back​ ​in​ ​the​ ​plan-preparation​ ​process​ ​we​ ​wil ​ ​need​ ​to​ ​go. 

Counsel​ ​advice,​ ​and​ ​advice​ ​from​ ​DCLG​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Planning​ ​Inspectorate,​ ​wil ​ ​need​ ​to 

be​ ​sought​ ​on​ ​procedural​ ​matters​ ​once​ ​the​ ​potential​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​are​ ​more 

clear. 

 

● Preferably,​ ​the​ ​level​ ​of​ ​change​ ​would​ ​be​ ​capable​ ​of​ ​being​ ​dealt​ ​with​ ​through​ ​a​ ​further Reg​ ​19​ ​stage​ ​which​ ​would​ ​involve​ ​approximately​ ​6​ ​-​ ​8​ ​months​ ​of​ ​work​ ​on​ ​revisions​ ​to the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​and​ ​the​ ​supporting​ ​evidence​ ​base​ ​plus​ ​time​ ​allowed​ ​for​ ​the Council’s​ ​internal​ ​approval​ ​processes​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​an​ ​overall ​ ​9​ ​to​ ​12​ ​month​ ​delay. 

Likely​ ​costs​ ​involved​ ​in​ ​making​ ​modifications​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy,​ ​revisions​ ​to​ ​the 

supporting​ ​evidence​ ​base,​ ​carrying​ ​out​ ​the​ ​necessary​ ​consultation​ ​and​ ​providing 

additional​ ​staff​ ​resource​ ​to​ ​speed​ ​up​ ​the​ ​process​ ​is​ ​estimated​ ​at​ ​£350k 

 

● Alternatively,​ ​should​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​be​ ​so​ ​significant​ ​that​ ​they​ ​would​ ​effectively 

represent​ ​a​ ​new​ ​strategic​ ​direction​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​then​ ​going​ ​back​ ​to​ ​Reg​ ​18​ ​stage 

would​ ​be​ ​necessary.​ ​A​ ​current​ ​estimate​ ​of​ ​the​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​work​ ​required​ ​in​ ​preparing​ ​a 

new​ ​Plan,​ ​new​ ​evidence​ ​base​ ​and​ ​the​ ​numerous​ ​consultation​ ​stages​ ​that​ ​would​ ​be 

necessary​ ​would​ ​lead​ ​to​ ​at​ ​least​ ​a​ ​two​ ​year​ ​delay​ ​in​ ​re-submitting​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​to 

Government​ ​and​ ​costs​ ​comfortably​ ​exceeding​ ​£500k 

 

● Withdrawal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy​ ​would​ ​leave​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​and​ ​local​ ​communities​ ​at 

risk​ ​of​ ​being​ ​disadvantaged​ ​by​ ​speculative/unplanned​ ​development​ ​whilst​ ​changes 

are​ ​made​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Plan.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​also​ ​an​ ​increased​ ​likelihood​ ​of​ ​significant​ ​planning 

appeals​ ​in​ ​cases​ ​where​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​seeks​ ​to​ ​resist​ ​development​ ​proposals​ ​on​ ​the 

basis​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Plan​ ​that​ ​is​ ​withdrawn​ ​and​ ​carries​ ​no​ ​weight​ ​in​ ​the​ ​interim​ ​period.​ ​It​ ​is 

therefore​ ​essential​ ​that,​ ​should​ ​the​ ​Plan​ ​be​ ​withdrawn,​ ​any​ ​time​ ​gap​ ​between 

withdrawal​ ​and​ ​resubmission​ ​to​ ​Government​ ​for​ ​examination​ ​is​ ​minimised. 

 

● A​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the​ ​overall ​ ​housing​ ​target​ ​figure​ ​from​ ​24,320​ ​to​ ​between​ ​19,000​ ​- 

21,000​ ​would​ ​still ​ ​allow​ ​the​ ​Council​ ​to​ ​present ​the​ ​Plan​ ​as​ ​a​ ​strategy​ ​for​ ​growth. 

There​ ​are​ ​two​ ​evidence-based​ ​scenarios​ ​carried​ ​out​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Council’s​ ​consultant 

Edge​ ​Analytics​ ​that​ ​would​ ​support​ ​this​ ​approach,​ ​albeit​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​anticipated 

unemployment​ ​and​ ​commuting​ ​ratios​ ​for​ ​the​ ​County​ ​would​ ​be​ ​required.​ ​On​ ​a 

settlement-by-settlement​ ​basis​ ​this​ ​would​ ​still ​ ​represent​ ​growth​ ​but​ ​would​ ​result​ ​in 

some​ ​loss​ ​of​ ​working​ ​age​ ​population.​ ​This​ ​then​ ​reduces​ ​the​ ​demographic​ ​re-balance 

and​ ​would​ ​be​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​make​ ​the​ ​achievement​ ​of​ ​10,000​ ​new​ ​jobs​ ​much​ ​harder.​ ​The 

potential​ ​impact​ ​of​ ​a​ ​lower​ ​overal ​ ​housing​ ​figure​ ​on​ ​delivery​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Council’s 

Economic​ ​Strategy​ ​would​ ​therefore​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​considered. 

 

● A​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the​ ​proposed​ ​housing​ ​numbers​ ​would​ ​assist​ ​in​ ​overcoming​ ​existing 

opposition​ ​from​ ​many​ ​local​ ​communities​ ​and​ ​neighbouring​ ​authorities​ ​such​ ​as 

Newcastle​ ​and​ ​Gateshead​ ​who​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​current​ ​proposed​ ​level​ ​of​ ​housing 

growth​ ​to​ ​be​ ​too​ ​ambitious​ ​for​ ​Northumberland​ ​and​ ​potentially​ ​prejudicial​ ​to​ ​the 

success​ ​of​ ​their​ ​housing​ ​market​ ​areas.​ ​However,​ ​whereas​ ​the​ ​main​ ​volume 

housebuilders​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Home​ ​Builders​ ​Federation​ ​(HBF)​ ​are​ ​very​ ​supportive​ ​of​ ​the 

current​ ​version​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Core​ ​Strategy,​ ​a​ ​reduction​ ​in​ ​the​ ​overall ​ ​housing​ ​numbers 

would​ ​inevitably​ ​result​ ​in​ ​significant​ ​challenge​ ​from​ ​the​ ​development​ ​industry​ ​at​ ​any 

future​ ​examination.