Campaigners against a proposed opencast mine have claimed councillors are being silenced on the issue.
Councillors on the Planning Committee have been told by Caerphilly County Borough Council’s Legal Department not to speak about the Nant Llesg Opencast Mine but the United Valleys Action Group claims this contravenes the 2011 Localism Act.
Campaigners cited the act after being told by some councillors they won’t openly support their cause for fear of being accused of predetermination prior to voting on the proposals.
Chris Austin, Secretary of United Valleys Action Group, said misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the law appears to be endemic in the council.
In a letter to Caerphilly County Borough Council addressing “councillor’s apparent lack of understanding of the current planning law”, he said: “I have recently been communicating with councillors serving on Caerphilly County Borough Council, both on the planning committee and not.
“Without exception all the councillors I have had contact with were convinced that they were constrained by strict planning laws that precluded them from speaking about, attending, or taking part in the Nant Llesg opencast coal mine discussions and campaign, and in fact, any live planning application.”
Cllr Carl Cuss received a petition from campaigners at a recent protest against the mine, but does not sit on the Planning Committee.
He said: “Members of the planning committee have had strict legal advice, they are not allowed to say anything because they would be barred from voting.
“The campaigners are raising concerns that they’ve made quite clear and now need to wait for the decision.
“I have spoken publicly against the application, obviously they can raise their concerns with me but I can’t speak for other members.”
UK Government advice on the law suggests it was made to allow debate and the freedom for councillors to pursue their election pledges.
The advice states: “The Localism Act makes it clear that it is proper for councillors to play an active
part in local discussions, and that they should not be liable to legal challenge as a result.”
However, councillors have claimed this only allows them to observe meetings and not take part in proceedings and the council have not fully accepted Mr Austin’s interpretation of the law.
Mr Austin added: “The communities of the Upper Rhymney Valley are facing the most awful proposal of their generation – 15 years of opencast coal mining at Nant Llesg in Rhymney.
“This would blight the future of the valley and the local communities of Rhymney, Pontlottyn and Fochriw.
“They have been campaigning largely without the support of their elected representatives because of the councillors fear of predetermination and possible legal action.
“We hope that, with this clarification of the law, the councillors will now stand-up and be counted in the communities that voted them in, and support them in their campaign.”
Cllr Gaynor Oliver, who represents Pontlottyn, said she hadn’t requested or received advice from the legal department.
Cllr Oliver said: “It’s my personal choice not to give an opinion until I am asked which way I am going to vote.
“I am not prepared to speak on it before the planning committee just in case anyone says I can’t, but I am a person of the people and listen to my constituents. I haven’t made my mind up on the exact way I will vote and won’t until I hear the case.”
A Caerphilly County Borough Council spokesperson said: “All elected members have been briefed on the Member Code of Conduct and the Localism Act 2011 and its relevance to decision making.
“Participating in a decision and failing to declare interests whether personal or prejudicial, in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct could result in a referral to the Ombudsman.
“Participating in a planning matter, having predetermined the application, could provide grounds for a legal challenge.”
Cllr David Carter, Chair of the Planning Committee, said: “I hope to make it possible for a special planning committee to be held to debate the whole issue.
“I will ensure on fairness and equity for all parties. The council’s legal advice is to make no further comment at this junction.”
The planned mine would be located north of Fochriw and west of Rhymney and developers say up to 239 jobs could be created with up to six million tonnes of coal extracted over 17 years and £12.9 million will be invested annually in the local area.
Developer Miller Argent said it had undertaken in-depth studies as part of its planning application.
In response to the claims made by Mr Austin, its Managing Director Neil Brown said: “Miller Argent is proud of the potential benefits that the proposed Nant Llesg scheme would bring to the area. These would include hundreds of new jobs, a multi-million pound community benefit fund and much needed investment into the local economy.”
“We have undertaken extensive local consultation on our plans for the proposed Nant Llesg scheme in order to ensure that the scheme can bring as much benefit to the local communities as possible, as well as minimising potential impacts to neighbouring businesses and residents.
“As part of our planning application, we have undertaken in depth studies into potential environmental, health, economic and social impacts, to ensure our scheme meets the stringent standards required by government organisations.”
No date has been set for the application to be discussed but Caerphilly Observer understands the Planning Committee will vote on the proposals later this year.
Cllr Oliver said:
“It’s my personal choice not to give an opinion until I am asked which way I am going to vote.
“I am not prepared to speak on it before the planning committee just
in case anyone says I can’t, but I am a person of the people and listen
to my constituents. I haven’t made my mind up on the exact way I will
vote and won’t until I hear the case.”
I suppose Cllr Oliver (and the other elected members who are shutting their eyes to this issue), intends to LISTEN TO `BOTH SIDES` OF THE ISSUE BEFORE SHE VOTES?? But that is difficult surly If she and her colleagues refuse and fail to listen to the people which she should be consulting and networking in respect to civic issues every day.i.e. HER CONSTITUENTS.
What a disgraceful and unacceptable attitude to take on matters of prominence and concern to citizens of the Borough when those people we elect, and pay, to represent us wont even listen to us. And to have that `advice` provided by a Council Solicitor is even more alarming from a Wider Borough perspective.
Who is running this Council? The Citizens of the Borough, The Labour Party who currently holds the power base in Caerphilly,? or some second rate, paralegal hack who, if this article is to be believed, tells my democratically elected representative not to engage with the people who elected them? This issue should be reported to the Auditor General for Wales, he has form when it comes to doing the right thing in respect to the governance activities of the Caerphilly Council`s Legal Department.
Most councillors attended a presentation put on by the developer showing all that the proposal has to offer the communities, yet U.V.A.G were refused the opportunity to show them the detramental effects of such development, so there has definatly not been a LETS LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES situation here, They have the planning documentation and a presentation to help them make a decision but none of them are prepared to listen to the counter arguements, I wonder if Cllr Oliver is prepared to get into a one on one discussion with one of her constituants or to even listen to what they have to say on the subject?
From experience I can assure readers that most of any perceived awkward questioning from residents to councillors are referred to the legal department. Now that their head of legal is suspended on full pay awaiting trial on allegations of misconduct in public office one wonders who’s in overall charge? The lunatics?
Lots of councillor are in it for themselves. I have suspicions that many sign a non-disclosure form and tell residents veer little. After all, they serve their party’ sincerest first.
Richard Williams, you seem to be in politics for the right reasons. Was there pressure to sing a non-disclosure form or similar? If so, did you sign one? That is, if this question doesn’t breech that contract.
Dean, I have only ever agreed to the councillors code of conduct, a document which all councillors have to abide by, which governs councillors behaviour both within the chamber and in their daily lives. I would not sign any document which prevents me from representing all the residents in my ward to the best of my abilities.
The current row is not a new one, the legal advice not to “take sides” prior to a planning decision has been trotted out many years before I offered myself for election. My reading of the Localism Act 2011 does not lead me to think that a councillor cannot voice an opinion, or the opinions of the residents, at any time. I am not a lawyer and those who are legally trained may take a contrary view.
That said, I do have sympathy with Cllr. Gaynor Oliver. Her published remarks indicate that she will listen to both sides of the argument (sensible) but will not indicate whether she is for or against, yet, in case her contribution can be disallowed on the basis of prejudical actions.
Closer to home the preliminary document relating to the proposed open cast site has been discussed at Caerffili Town Council. So far no resident in my ward has spoken to me expressing an opinion, either for or against, and I confined my remarks to pointing out that rail traffic would increase through the town if coal were to be extracted.
Thanks for the reply. What does the code of conduct involve, say there was a meeting discussing something, could you then leave and tell a constituent everything that was said or are some things off limits? Obviously personal details would be confidential but what about everything else. It would be good to have an independent legal expert read over that act to be clear where the line is drawn.
Oliver’s position seems to be one of madness. Usually you deal with an issue as it’s raised. If the ‘no’ campaign starts to talk before the meeting then they should be dealt with before the meeting. Yes, she would have preconceptions and prejudice but that’s the way it is. Even with her keeping quiet, she already has opinions. The ‘no’ campaign is active and she has an unvoiced opinion. She may as well engage and discuss now.
Whose policy is it to discount prejudicial actions? I assume it’s not a legal one (If the case was a company applying for planning permission and the CEO was also a councillor, it’s understandable but in the case of Oliver, it isn’t.)
For example, the recent predicted planning application, a councillor on the planning committee would be directly affected. Is his view discounted? It shouldn’t be as he is a resident too.
As far as I am concerned everything said at a meeting of the council is public domain. In fact public and press are welcome to attend Town Council meetings. I wish they would in greater numbers.
However there have been occassions when the public have been asked to leave, invoking some rule or another. This has not occurred since I was elected but I have seen this happen.
There is far to go to make local government more transparent and I try and play a part in this process. Some time ago I voted for a motion to make all votes recorded, so that anyone could see exactly how town councilors voted on any issue. The Labour and Independent members of the Town Council voted for this but the motion was defeated by the Plaid majority.
With regard to Cllr. Oliver I would have handled it differently if I had been in her position but can understand her reluctance to state her views. I am not a political person so do not carry the baggage that goes hand in hand with party membership.
I attended one and vowed never to attend another. I was listening to a few elderly people bicker and the biggest points in the debate were not raised. They focussed on the minor details. The other members of public thought the same. Hopefully things have changed now.
Do us a favour please and table a motion calling for all voting to be done using a secret ballot. Councillors are more likely to serve their constituents then and not their party. Things can finally get done.
The problem with a secret ballot, in my view, is that elected representatives can hide. I prefer a system where every vote is subject to a recording of who votes for what. I have never had a problem with being identified.
I would like to see recorded voting at Town and Borough level. In fact I will, once more, table this as a motion. Perhaps Plaid Cymru will, again, use their block vote to defeat this but at least I would have tried. This type of motion has also been defeated at Borough Council. To his very great credit Labour Cllr. Jamie Pritchard voted, on both occasions, in favour of recorded votes. Jamie was elected in 2012, for both town and borough, in the Morgan Jones ward. Like me he has no problem with standing up for the people of his ward and his beliefs.
I don’t think being identified is a problem as such. It’s great that you do have councillors who stand up for their wards but you have many who think “I’ll vote yes because that’s what my party want me to do,” The councillors become accountable to their party. If they go against party, life is made difficult for them. That’s my biggest bug bear!
That, I’m afraid, is the problem with party politics. Many people don’t realise that independent candidates finance their campaigns from their own pocket and, win or lose, are not reimbursed.
The party political people have their campaign paid for by their party. This leads to a debt being owed to their paymaster which expects them to vote along lines decided by the party they belong to.
Very few will defy this and a secret ballot will not help much. I was much encouraged by a recent interview with the leader of UKIP. The interviewer was trying to embarass him by raising the way some UKIP councillors voted. He said that a “one size fits all” approach was not the way he ran the party. Local councillors should vote according to the needs of their local wards and should not be following instructions from him. Well said Mr. Farage, perhaps this is a new way of doing things.
Here we go: I commented on your view about `secret ballots` Dean, but guess what, I have been SILENCED by the Caerphilly Observer. it has been removed before it appeared. Now that is a problem for free expression. and I am not bound by any codes simply the law.
Like the law of defamation. We have explained in the past that any posts that come to our attention that make defamatory remarks would be removed.
I saw the notification and then “this comment has been deleted ” when I clicked it. It’s the ‘Caerphilly Observer’ for you. They blame it on ‘defamation’ but something would only be defamation if it’s proved to be slander or libel. Therefore, someone is making a personal decision about it being false instead of allowing debate. It is indefensible censorship. There should be zero moderation. A derogatory mark is different, but even then it’s a personal decision as to whether something is derogatory.
Dean you are correct of course:
My comments offended someone in the Caerphilly Observer because I pointed out in that statement FACTS in respect to the way the Caerphilly Council operates when it comes to nonrecording of votes etc, I also pointed out that three senior officers of Caerphilly CBC, including it`s monitoring officer are on Police Bail for doing exactly that, failing to keep proper records of civic proceedings. Now. whats wrong with that, and I welcome the Observer drawing my comments to the attention of anyone who they feel may have been slandered or been libeled in the censored comment, better still, reconsider publication and show by redactification the `extend` of the offending words or phrases.
Councillor Williams is known to me and is as honest a person that you can get.
He always applies his honest approach to all things civic. unlike some local representatives ( and I see no reason for any one of THEM to throw their toys our the pram by complaining about this comment because they know who they are) who can pre-plan, prearrange, and predetermine decision in the council chamber before they are even debated.
They continue year after year to `divide up the spoils` of local representation to outside bodies, the net result then being that those ` appointed.` to outside bodies. do not report back to the Council in a public meeting, but, they do discuss the issues which effect us all behind closed doors, excluding Councillors like Richard Williams from very important local matter of interest to his constituents.
The above process has been ratified by the same Council Officer who has advised these Councillors on this planning issue, that officer being Caerphilly BC Monitoring Officer, who`a boss, Dan Perkins is currently under police bail, and suspended from the Council for Misconduct in Public Office, so, I have now come full circle and I rest my case..
the full text from the plain english guide to the localisum act reads as follows:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5959/1896534.pdf
Clarifying the rules on predetermination
Clarifying the rules on predetermination In parallel with the abolition of the Standards Board, the Government has used the Localism Act to clarify the rules on ‘predetermination’. These rules were developed to ensure that councillors came to council discussions – on, for example, planning applications – with an open mind. In practice, however, these rules had been interpreted in such a way as to reduce the quality of local debate and stifle valid discussion. In some cases councillors were warned off doing such things as campaigning, talking with constituents, or publicly expressing views on local issues, for fear of being accused of bias or facing legal challenge. Clarifying the rules on predetermination In parallel with the abolition of the Standards Board, the Government has used the Localism Act to clarify the rules on ‘predetermination’. These rules were developed to ensure that councillors came to council discussions – on, for example, planning applications – with an open mind. In practice, however, these rules had been interpreted in such a way as to reduce the quality of local debate and stifle valid discussion. In some cases councillors were warned off doing such things as campaigning, talking with constituents, or publicly expressing views on local issues, for fear of being accused of bias or facing legal challenge.
The Localism Act makes it clear that it is proper for councillors to play an active part in local discussions, and that they should not be liable to legal challenge as a result. This will help them better represent their constituents and enrich local democratic debate. People can elect their councillor confident in the knowledge that they will be able to act on the issues they care about
and have campaigned on.
I think you will all agree that this makes it perfectly clear that Cllr’s are free to listen speak out and even protest against planning aplications without fear of legal challenge.
Yes, that’s the way I understand the Localism Act too. The problem seems to be the council’s own legal department drawing a different conclusion and causing some councillors to be needlessly concerned of the consequences of representing their wards.
i’m not sure how CCBC legal team have a diferent understanding to the law. This is not some random document that has been drawn up by a back street legal practice. it is a guide drawn up by Department for Communities and Local Government. signed by Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Minister of State for Decentralisation
Why not draw Eddy`s clarification to the attention of the current Monitoring Officer, who it is said gave the original, what now appears to be `flawed` advice,( whoever that may be?) or, the Interim Chief Exec officer of Caerphilly council Stuart Rosser, who is a man of high professional integrity and who understands local governance backwards.Whatever he determines to be the right course will be just that ` the right or wrong thing to do` and, the correct advice to Councillors on this matter.
Cllr Olivers comments are a joke, she is awaiting to hear all the facts at the planning meeting before making a decision AND YET all the councillors have already heard what Miller Argent have to say and they attended a presentation to see all the wonderful things the Nant llesg opencast mine had to offer, so surely Cllr Oliver already has one side or the arguement, what she doesnt have and refuses to have is the flip side ,and to hear the opinions and veiws