|
|
 |
| |
‘Breakdown in relations’ on King’s Cross redevelopment
Panel finds former Borough Solictor Lowton was ‘less than helpful’
AN adjudication panel has acknowledged the breakdown in relations between Camden’s former planning chairman and senior Town Hall officers over the redevelopment of the King’s Cross railway lands.
The findings are included in a full report into the conduct of Labour councillor Brian Woodrow published by the Adjudication Panel for England on Friday.
It noted that there was “an absence of any meaningful relationship with officers”.
Cllr Woodrow (pictured above) – the council’s planning chief until last year – was cleared of bringing the council into disrepute when he spoke to a journalist about the redevelopment before developers Argent Limited had their applications publicly discussed by his committee. The panel found that he had breached a code of conduct when he spoke to English Heritage about the plans but that the offence was so minor that it did not require punishment.
Cllr Woodrow had endured a two-year investigation into his behaviour after being reported to the Standards Board for England by then Borough Solicitor Alison Lowton. His stance has been that he had to seek information for himself because he did not get the help he needed from council officials.
The panel’s full findings showed that Ms Lowton had herself been “less than helpful” when Cllr Woodrow had asked her for advice.
Panel chairman Simon Bird’s report said: “It does seem to the Tribunal that there is some merit in the criticism that Ms Lowton was at times less than helpful in her responses to Cllr Woodrow.”
While Cllr Woodrow’s legal team argued this point at a three-day tribunal hearing into his conduct earlier this month – the panel found that these concerns were not raised in 2004 when the breakdown in relations is said to have begun.
Mr Bird said: “The Tribunal accepts that Cllr Woodrow’s motive for his conduct was to further his view of where the public interest lay and that, had he received a more constructive response from the council’s officers, that contact with Mr Pugh (Patrick Pugh, chief officer at English Heritage) may never occurred. However, whilst the absence of any meaningful relationship with officers may have justified Cllr Woodrow in seeking the advice of English Heritage on his concerns as to the outline nature of the applications, it could not and did not justify the quiet lobbying of their officer to share his predisposition.”
|
 |
|
|
|
