|
|
 |
| |
Cllr Brian Woodrow, left, and his lawyer Robert McCracken, after the hearing |
A sinister obsession in the Town Hall
Case reveals allegations of ‘cosy consensus’ over £2-billion development
THE Town Hall’s former planning chief, sacked for alleged bias against the controversial £2 billion King’s Cross development, was yesterday (Wednesday) vindicated by the local government watchdog.
The Adjudication Panel for England ruled that Councillor Brian Woodrow did not break any rules in publicly questioning the controversial plans to redevelop Europe’s biggest brownfiled site.
His two-year ordeal, described by friends as a “witch hunt” came to an end in the basement of the Bonnington Hotel in Holborn.
The protracted hearing, spread over three days, saw the lid lifted on acrimony at the heart of the Town Hall over the development. It heard an astonishing array of allegations about the planning regime.
Cllr Woodrow, in his defence, had accused former senior officers of pandering to big business over planning issues.
The hearing followed an investigation by the Standard’s Board for England after Cllr Woodrow was reported by former borough solicitor Alison Lowton.
In a separate charge, the panel ruled he had breached a code of conduct when he spoke to conservation advisers English Heritage about his concerns for the site but that it was “at the low end in seriousness” and did not require punishment.
Cllr Woodrow, a Labour member who represents Holborn and Covent Garden, did not comment after learning that he will not face any sanction for the minor breach but looked relieved that the proceedings had finally come to an end.
Close friends, angry at his treatment, are nonetheless hailing the panel’s verdict as a “good result”.
Panel chairman Simon Bird said that Cllr Woodrow had a previously unblemished record of public service and had acted in what he thought had been the public interest.
In an explosive final session of the tribunal, Cllr Woodrow and his lawyer Robert McCracken gave an insight into the context of the case, attacking senior officers for being “downright obstructive” towards Cllr Woodrow and having a “sinister obsession” with what planning gain could be got out of the King’s Cross project.
Mr McCracken said that relations between civil servants and elected councillors had broken down over King’s Cross, naming Ms Lowton and environment director Peter Bishop.
Of Ms Lowton, he told tribunal: “She was clearly hostile to Councillor Woodrow. She was struggling with and determined to control Councillor Woodrow and his committee by means which might well have been seen as downright obstructiveness.”
He painted a picture of chaos in the Town Hall’s planning and legal departments in which Cllr Woodrow struggled to get access to simple documents such as briefing notes on King’s Cross.
In one email exchange read to the tribunal, Ms Lowton questioned Cllr Woodrow’s definition of a ‘briefing note’ when he had asked to see them.
Mr McCracken said Ms Lowton had been “astonishingly obstructive”, adding: “It was akin to President Clinton asking the Senate what consisted improper physical contact.” He said the papers should have been put in the Town Hall’s members’ room.
The basis of Cllr Woodrow’s legal team’s argument was that information and help was withheld by officials and, in that context, Cllr Woodrow made his own enquiries with English Heritage’s Patrick Pugh, a leading official in the conservation body.
Phone calls – made some time in summer 2004 – were considered by the Standards Board to be some form of quiet lobbying by Cllr Woodrow in a bid to get English Heritage to oppose an outline application submitted by developers Argent Ltd. In his own words, Mr Pugh told the tribunal that the calls were “absolutely on the margin”.
Mr McCracken said officials were worried by anything that could derail the progress of the planning applications at the Town Hall.
Mr McCracken said a cabal of officers feared Camden would lose out on planning benefits if the scheme was transferred to an inspector or to the Secretary of State.
He called it a “sinister obsession” among senior officers. Returning again to Cllr Woodrow’s exchanges with Ms Lowton, he told the tribunal: “She was a member of the management team which like the executive (a group of senior Labour councillors), was keen for Camden to grant permission for the King’s Cross development because more ‘planning gain’ would be won that way than on appeal to an inspector or the Secretary of State.”
Mr McCracken said that Cllr Woodrow had been “courageous” and had bravely questioned a “cosy consensus” between the developers and the Town Hall.
In his own evidence, Cllr Woodrow made a direct attack on Mr Bishop, who is on the verge of leaving Camden Council to take up a job advising London Mayor Ken Livingstone.
In an interview with Standards Board investigators – a transcript of which was given to the tribunal – Cllr Woodrow said: “There is a tendency to be quite sort of too over generous or helpful to what he calls the powerful institutions in the borough, which is very bad for us because we’re taking enforcement action against ordinary people and, again, the big guys seem to get preferential treatment.
“He’s interfered in various applications. So you know there is a cultural clash.”
With regard to Ms Lowton, he added: “My experience is that she’s not a person who understands planning, she simply relies on the planning officers, so if you want to get advice… there are difficulties of that sort.”
Cllr Woodrow added: “Let me put it this way, one of my colleagues said we in Camden, we need two… we should have two borough solicitors.
“One to represent members and one to represent the chief officers. I think that was a reflection on the general view that the borough solicitor will see herself as supporting the chief officers.”
Ms Lowton has since left the Town Hall. Her post was deleted in a raft of council cuts earlier this year and she took early retirement.
Cllr Woodrow, one of the most experienced councillors at the Town Hall, was Camden’s planning chairman for eight years before he was ousted by his own Labour colleagues last May. He no longer sits on the committee and overall control has transferred to the Lib Dem and Conservative partnership in charge at the Town Hall. New planning chairwoman Dawn Somper, a Tory, was among councillors from all parties who wrote to the tribunal in Cllr Woodrow’s support.
Argent Limited did not raise concerns about Cllr Woodrow’s conduct until chief executive Roger Madelin saw comments attributed to Cllr Woodrow in the Architects Journal, a trade magazine, in September 2004. Cllr Woodrow claimed that those remarks had been ‘sexed-up’. The panel cleared Cllr Woodrow of any wrong-doing in relation to his exchanges with journalists. While the tribunal was being prepared, Argent have since won approval for their blueprint from the council and Mr Livingstone. Only a High Court challenge will stop them from beginning work on the site.
Matthew Horton QC, representing the Standards Board, said that Cllr Woodrow’s defence could amount to a “charter for disobedience”.
He said: “Cllr Woodrow was seen as a champion for local people who were concerned about the scale of the King’s Cross applications, and indeed against them. It is shocking that a Chair of the sub-committee should allow himself to be characterised in this way. It was an extraordinary course of conduct for the chair of the sub-committee.”
A council press official said: “The Adjudication Panel made no criticism of the council or its officers in their handling of the King’s Cross Development in their decision. The council is pleased that this matter has now been resolved through the appropriate channels.” |
 |
|
|
|
