Yard petition fails to sway the council, Teesdale Mercury

Yard petition fails to sway the council

Aug 7, 2002

A STATEMENT from Teesdale council about the redevelopment of Commercial Yard does not answer all the questions claims Coun Newton Wood.

The statement was issued in response to the petition of over 1,500 names that was handed to chairman Coun Phil Hughes at the last meeting of the full council.

The statement said the decision to grant planning permission had been made properly and because three days had expired since it had been made it could not legally be revisited.

At a special meeting of the full council, councillors were asked to approve the statement.

However, Coun Newton Wood claimed that the press statement was inaccurate. He said he had been told that he could bring the matter back to the full council at any time and not within three days. “This doesn’t say that I was misled,” he told the council. “People think this is a major cover-up.”

He also asked where the legal advice was which led to the rescindment of his decision. Chairman, Coun Phil Hughes said that he had seen a fax of the advice, and he expected that a paper copy had followed the fax.

However, Coun Wood said that he had not seen anything and felt as it was his motion which was rescinded he should have been shown some legal evidence.

A fiery debate followed and attacks were made on the monitoring officer and the planning officer before Coun Hughes reminded councillors of the ‘corporate responsibilities of the council.’

Members were asked to vote on the press statement and Coun Ian Galletley reminded them that they could vote against the statement even if they agreed with the planning decision. He felt that the statement was incomplete.

In a named vote, 19 members voted to approve the statement and Coun Wood, Coun John Watson, Coun Galletley and Coun Margaret Hamilton voted against it. Coun John Hinchcliffe abstained and took no part in the discussion.

Afterwards, Alan Jackson of the Chattery in Commercial Yard heavily criticised the council’s attitude. The debate had left him shattered, he said.

‘There was not one constructive comment made,” he said. “The council’s not shouldering any responsibility.”

However, he said that this was by no means the end of the story. The businesses in Commercial Yard had received support from all over Teesdale, including Robert Swan, the arctic explorer.

The businesses were going to take legal action, he said. “They have voted us out of a living,” said Mr Jackson. “I don’t think I could do that to anybody.”

Coun Wood told the Mercury he still wanted proof that the rescindment of his motion was legal. The monitoring officer Mike Dennis had helped him write the form for the seven signatures which were needed to overrule the planning committees decision and refer it to full council, he said.

However, it was judged that three days had elapsed since the decision was made and the form was handed in and his motion was rescinded.

“After four weeks I still haven’t received a written statement to say what they did was legal,” said Coun Wood. “I want to ask readers of the Teesdale Mercury if they are beginning to believe, like me, that there isn’t one.”