|
|
 |
| |
Unelected and unaccountable
• `WE have long suspected that civil servants at the Town Hall have been prone to interfere in matters which should be of none of their concern.
Who should run the Town Hall? Obviously, the elected councillors.
From time to time, however, we have warned over the years that some unelected officials have not restrained themselves from telling elected councillors what to think – and do.
But never have they appeared to interfere on such a scale as grand as that of the King’s Cross redevelopment scheme – the biggest single piece of inner-city regeneration attempted in London since the 1950s.
We make this accusation because, following investigations by this newspaper, it is becoming clearer and clearer that our unelected officials have done everything in their power to accelerate, come what may, what can, admittedly, often be a tortuous planning process (See page 7).
We would not level this charge if it were not of grave public concern.
Part of it comes down to an allegation – for which there is prima facie evidence – by Councillor Brian Woodrow, that there was an attempt to oust him as chairman of the planning committee by political colleagues aided and abetted by officials.
Cllr Woodrow’s service to the community is unimpeachable – first as a campaigner in the 1960s and 1970s, to save listed buildings in Holborn, with the support of MP Frank Dobson, then leader of Camden Council, and later throughout the 1980s and 1990s, as a committed planning committee chairman, and politician dedicated to the democratic process.
Behind the scenes pressure has been exerted on planning committee members.
Whatever the intention of environment director Peter Bishop, we can only repeat, with some surprise, the statement he made to the Standards Board in which he stated that elected councillors should not question advice given by officials and that to do so in terms of the King’s Cross scheme amounted to an accusation of “professional negligence.”
There are many shadowy aspects to the preparatory scene-shifting of this King’s Cross drama.
So deep is the disappointment felt by planners, campaigners and conservationists that steps are now being taken to set a judicial review in progress.
Whether those seeking a judicial review are successful or not, it is clear to this newspaper that a scheme of this singular importance to the capital can only be tested by a full public inquiry.
|
 |
|
|
|
