Developer delivers second stinging attack on failed Braddan Plan review process

Developer, Henry Kennaugh has delivered a further devastating attack on the Department of Local Government and the Environment, and the manner in which he thought the Department mismanaged the review of the Braddan Plan.

Mr Kennaugh was giving evidence to the Tynwald Select Committee, set up to investigate the reasons for the failure to complete the review of the Braddan Plan, on Friday 11^th April 2008.

However, prior to giving his evidence, Mr Kennaugh had informed the Committee that he had written to the president of Tynwald, Noel Cringle, expressing his concern about the ability of the ‘establishment’ to regulate itself. He said he hoped that this Committee would demonstrate that it was competent to carry out such a role.

He then listed, for the Committee, a series of failures which included: that no surveys were commissioned of any kind; no credible evidence base was collated; there was a total lack of transparency; there was no planning framework; no appropriate declarations of interest were registered; reliance on personal opinion of the planning officer who lived in the area; allowing private and confidential submissions; allowing Sarah Corlett, the Planning Officer, to attend meetings, in private houses, to consult on the plan content; allowing the planning officer to produce and circulate a questionnaire, to all residents of Braddan, which was unprofessional and biased; and for the Department’s own policy on land protection to be ignored.

He said that even by the DLGE’s (poor) standards this was impressive.

He asked the Committee to consider whether the failings were due to incompetence or a deliberate attempt to avoid proper process; as he believed proper process would not have produced the results wished for by some individuals.

Mr Kennaugh pointed out that the only site, proposed for development in the Issues and Options documents in October 1999 and May 2000, without the planning history included, was a field in the ownership of Mr Lewin. Was this because it would have identified Mr Lewin as the owner, Miss Corlett as the planning officer and that the, then, Director of Planning, Barry Vannan had used is delegated powers to granted a restrictive planning permission for the site, he inquired?

He then continued to question the integrity of the decision to propose, and support, the inclusion of this 3.9 acre field for development which Mr Kennaugh claimed would be worth £2m if so zoned; and the honesty of the parties involved.

He told the Committee that the Inspector, who conducted the Public Inquiry in to the draft plan, had found “nothing, not one issue” to support development of area 14, the land sold by Mr Lewin, to Heritage Homes, in December 1999, for nearly £300,000; and they should consider what “motive” Miss Corlett had for her actions.

Mr Kennaugh continued to explain why he thought the process had become corrupted by the involvement of Miss Corlett and Mr Lewin, and resulted in the unfair treatment of certain parcels of land.

He claimed they had been reckless in their actions, and this was highlighted in a letter, dated 3^rd August 2001, from Miss Corlett to Mr Lewin, in which she explained how she had tried to “strengthen the presumption against development at Camlork”.

This he said was evidence of collusion between the planning officer and the clerk to a local authority to damage the legitimate proposal of a private company.

He said Miss Corlett had then gained the approval of the Department, to her proposals, as promised in her letter to Mr Lewin; and that Mr Lewin had failed the Commissioners, and incriminated himself, by not bringing to their attention Miss Corlett’s damaging action.

Mr Kennaugh then went on the attack over the way area 3, the field behind Camlork Close, was removed and substituted for area 7, the land on the other side of the Mount Rule Road.

He suggested the substitution of the 6 acres of area 3 for the 30 acres of area 7 was, in his mind, an example of corruption; and should go down as one of the most reckless decisions of a planning officer – anywhere.

He said the 441 signature petition, signed by residents of Union Mills and the Strang was misused by the planning officer to help justify the decision, when it clearly stated that the petitioners were objecting to development to the “whole of the Camlork Farm”.

He was particularly scathing of the planning officer’s other reasons for rejecting area 3. He said it was “unsubstantiated rubbish” that the land was unstable and a “massive exaggeration of fact” that it would be difficult to engineer for development. As for the suggestion that area 3, being only 6 acres, would be unviable, he thought that it was no less viable than area 14 (4 acres).

He said the real reason was that they feared, if area 3 was left in the plan, it would open up the area for development of the whole area.

Its retention would also threaten the inclusion of areas 14, 23, 25 & 26, in the control of Dandara, but what threat would it pose to the Department he inquired. Was there a hidden agenda at Ministerial level, he wondered.

He again suggested Mr Lewin had failed to properly advise the Commissioners and that this betrayed his personal interest in the outcome of the plan.

The contradictory manner in which area 3 and area 7 were handled by the planning officer, which were on opposite sides of the same road, he said bordered on the ridiculous, especially in relation to traffic issues.

He was critical of the way the land availability study, prepared for the Strategic Plan, included land in Braddan, for 569 houses, that had no zoning or planning approvals was some accomplishment; and the figure should have been zero.

He pointed out that Miss Corlett was one of the contacts if anybody wished to query the figures; which didn’t come as a surprise to him - as who else would be so reckless.

He said Mr Lewin hadn’t queried these figures; but then he had a debt of gratitude owing to Miss Corlett for not disclosing the planning history or ownership of area 14.

He stated that he had some sympathy for the Commissioners, as clearly they had not been fully advised by Mr Lewin on important issues.

He mocked the planning advice offered by Mr Corkhill, by reminding the Committee that he had based his advice, to remove area 3, on “mud coming over his shoes and Buster’s tractor getting stuck when he farmed it”. He said he believed that there had been times when the Commissioners had paid for that type of advice from Mr Corkhill.

Mr Kennaugh then proceeded to criticize the Department for allowing private and confidential submissions to the early stages of the plan, which he felt impeded the process, and the decision to prevent cross-examining of witnesses at the Braddan Plan Public Inquiry; and he said the reasons for the decision should be investigated by the Committee.

In winding up he said the ‘employment’ of Mr Mossop, the Inspector at the Braddan Inquiry, should be ‘tested’ against the ‘Pilling Judgement’, as it was now known he had not been as ‘independent’ as first thought.

Throughout Mr Kennaugh’s evidence, Committee members, Steve Rodan, Alex Downie and Tony Pass looked both concerned and decidedly uncomfortable. Only Peter Karran appeared unfazed by what he was hearing. Mr Lewin, who was seated in the public gallery, remained stony faced.

Mr Kennaugh was then briefly questioned by the Committee; as he had used most of his allotted time presenting his evidence.

Mr Rodan put to Mr Kennaugh that the purpose of the Public Inquiry was for the inspector to ‘test’ the proposals in the plan for zoning; and inferred that this process had then ‘validated’ any allocations.

However, Mr Kennaugh countered that the inspector was only considering what was put before him and, therefore, didn’t consider all possible land for suitability for development.

Mr Rodan pointed out that the inspector, having considered the evidence, had made some suggestions that differed to what the Department had proposed.

Mr Kennaugh wasn’t accepting this as giving the process a clean bill of health and stated that the inspector hadn’t done a completely new job on the plan – as that wasn’t for him to do.

In response Mr Rodan said there had been opportunity, at the Inquiry, for the inspector to consider other pieces of land, but Mr Kennaugh said it still wasn’t a fair process as it was weighted towards the Department and their draft plan.

He said this assertion was supported by the belated decision to disallow cross-examination, of witnesses, at the Inquir;y and, therefore, the only opportunity he would have had had to challenge the allocations in the plan was, in Court, following the approval of the plan by Tynwald.

Mr Downie suggested that there would have been opportunity to appear at the Bar of Tynwald, to oppose the approval of the plan; but Mr Kennaugh pointed out you now need leave to appear and that is not guaranteed.

Mr Pass thought that Mr Kennaugh had used emotive words during his evidence and wanted more information about the meetings in private houses.

Mr Kennaugh said he believed there had been at least two meetings; and named Mr McKinney as one resident who held such meetings with Miss Corlett. He thought this extraordinary.

Mr Pass raised the ‘debt of gratitude’ remark, to which Mr Kennaugh replied that she should have declared her knowledge of the land, especially taking into account the potential £2m value.

In the final question, from Mr Downie, it was put to Mr Kennaugh that he had heard evidence that land ownership was not a planning consideration, and that there was a difficulty in knowing who had land options, so what was his response.