Cash for Green Belt: minutes show how councillors wrestled with their conscience over Solar Farm
More details have been revealed of the degree to which parish councillors wrestled with the pro’s and con’s of a £360,000 “Community Benefit Fund” versus defending their Green Belt policy.
Parish councillors ditched their manifesto pledges to defend the Green Belt in return for a hoped-for Community Benefit Fund from the developer.
Minutes published from the Services Commitee on November 17, the last before Slough’s Planning Committee rejected the scheme on November 26, detail the discussions and deliberations that saw councillors soul searching over whether or not to support it.
Only five out of twelve councillors managed to turn up for the meeting, the minimum number needed for the meeting to actually go ahead. Apologies were received from Cllrs Angell, Bedi, Grewal, Kinane, Smith, Ellum-Smith and Laxman.
Cllr Hood told colleagues that Slough would recommend refusal on the same grounds as the SIFE application. However, he believed the Solar Farm was different and made a case for councillors to back it:
… the Solar Farm development was a passive, static, green initiative replacing a bio-fuel crop and was a sustainable development which would not impact on road congestion and pollution in the way that SIFE would …
He asked for members’ thoughts.
Cllr Richardson noted that the development would bring money into the parish in the form of the Community Benefit Fund.
Cllr Jackson had concerns in supporting the application on the grounds that the Parish Council’s objection to SIFE had placed great emphasis on preserving the Green Belt.
He felt that what is left of the Green Belt should be preserved.
Cllr Hood insisted that all the evidence had been heard in regard to SIFE already and since the Planning Inspector was already concluding her report on SIFE it would not change the comments on this application.
He added that the parish could miss the opportunity of the Community Benefit Fund which could generate £360,000 over the 25 years.
Cllr Hood proposed, and Cllr Bryant seconded, that Cllr Hood speak at the Planning Panel meeting on November 26 in support of the proposed Community Benefit Fund that the application would bring about.
Four councillors voted for and one abstained; seven were absent.
Following Cllr Hood’s address to the Planning Committee the application was rejected on the grounds that it would see a further fragmentation of the Green Belt and the “loss of important open land within the Strategic Gap at Colnbrook and Poyle“.
Where they claim to stand on the Green Belt
Seven councillors have made public statements or commitments to defending Colnbrook’s Green Belt. Between the parish meetings on 3 and 17 November when the Solar Farm was discussed all had the opportunity to lodge their objection.
Who has kept their word and who has broken their promise?
| Councillors committing to defend Green Belt | Councillors with no public view on Green Belt | ||
| Angell | No manifesto in 2015 but in 2011 “protection of the Green Belt” was one of eight commitments made as part of the Independent Minds grouping. | Bedi | No policies other than to develop a flood action plan and to campaign against a third runway. |
| Brooks | Objects to a Third Runway on the grounds it “would be a full frontal assault on Green Belt and tranquillity”. | Bryant | No policies shared. |
| Elum-Smith | “I will work with the Parish Council to make sure green belt is protected and also preserving the setting and special character of historic village in Colnbrook”. | Grewal | No policies shared. |
| Hood | No manifesto in 2015 but in 2011 “protection of the Green Belt” was one of eight commitments made as part of the Independent Minds grouping. | Kinane | No Green Belt policies, but promised “to take a keen interest in redevelopments in the area”. |
| Jackson | Strongly opposed to airport expansion, SIFE and the use of Sutton Lane for a contractor’s site. | Richardson | No policies shared. |
| Laxman | No manifesto in 2015 but in 2011 “protection of the Green Belt” was one of eight commitments made as part of the Independent Minds grouping. | ||
| Smith | “Letting any part of our Green Belt go is the thin edge of the wedge, and I would oppose it on that basis”. | ||
Cash for Green Belt: minutes show how councillors wrestled with their conscience over Solar Farm,
- Excited
- Fascinated
- Amused
- Bored
- Sad
- Angry
RT @ColnbrookViews: Cash for Green Belt: minutes show how councillors wrestled with their conscience over Solar Farm sellout… https://t.c…
Villagers…. beware, the ‘Ides of March’!!
So, elected on a mandate to defend the Green Belt Colnbrook’s finest decide to renege on their pledges in return for a few quid. That’s basically it isn’t it?
Defending the “Green Belt and historic character of Colnbrook” is just one of those things you have to say at election time … but don’t have to follow through on?
There should have been a named vote on this so we could be clear exactly which councillors have broken their promise. As it stands (and we may never know) the Planning Committee must have been an interesting spectacle with one Parish councillor arguing for the cash-for-Green-Belt deal and another arguing against.
Thankfully the Parish was overruled by the committee. It’s not often that Slough does the right thing where Colnbrook is concerned (and, sadly, we know where they stand long term).
But they know that with the SIFE inspector’s report not even in Mr Clark’s inbox now is not the time to start “selling off” bits of the Green Belt to the highest bidder.
It certainly puts into context the attempts to sabotage the stopSIFE campaign and why the Parish Council’s ‘Stop SIFE Again!’ campaign did not even address the public inquiry! And given the £££s that would flow into what’s left of the parish if a Third Runway does go ahead, the lack of any campaign by the Parish Council now makes sense.
Now we know Colnbrook’s Green Belt is simply being used as a bargaining chip these men and women should never be trusted again.
Oh dear Andy-You really are letting your prejudice influence your posting. The fact that Cllr Smith on behalf of the parish council has spent hours and prepared a submission on behalf of the parish council seems to have eluded you! There is little point in attending an inquiry if you have nothing to add to your submission-indeed this is emphasized in the paperwork supplied!-I would expect this from those who do nothing except shout a lot and wish to discredit the parish council in every way they can–indeed two in particular are fortunate that you moderate their postings to avoid legal action both for them and the website.–It is a great pity that these people do not actually volunteer to help with the same energy that they criticise. Perhaps if they did they may at least learn the rules and procedures around these issues. The personal abuse aimed at the Chairman is unforgivable–if those who attack him only knew of the amount of work that a committed chairman puts in they would be surprised. As regards attacks on people like Cllr. Angell-I challenge those ignorant people to commit to help as much as he does for the village. As regards Cllr Laxman, his courage against his cancer for the last five years has been extraordinary -even from his hospital bed he was still organising the Christmas Dinner this year–he has nothing but my greatest respect and admiration and I really wish that it was possible for his recovery!
Another point Andy. Slough doing the right thing! Why? Could it just be the income they would get from a third runway in the green belt? This would not necessarily be spent in Colnbrook. The solar farm proposal allows sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys etc to be there also. The money committed would benefit Colnbrook directly unlike the Heathrow’s commitment to SBC! Sorry Andy but it appears to me that you did not think this through–SBC have their own reasons for refusal which absolutely coincide with its commitment to the third runway! The parish council should be supported not castigated!
It’s good to hear from you Roland as always. Your interventions on these pages always remind us that 2.5 years since the Community Governance Review found the Parish Council needed to engage more, parish councillors still choose not to engage. Other than Cllrs Raymond Jackson and Dexter Smith – who, coincidentally, appear to be the only ones who have stuck to their guns (and pledges) in defending the Green Belt. Well done them.
Leaving aside your natural allegiance and personal bias (I can assure you I do think before I post!) you skirt around everything except the one substantive point I tried to make. MOST councillors broke their publicly made promise to defend the Green Belt.
I appreciate your later post suggests that “sheep, goats, chickens and turkey” could co-exist around densely packed 3m high solar panels. So what? Does that mean the openness of the Green Belt is only a little bit degraded? Like being only a little bit dead.
When you emailed me a few weeks ago to reproach me for highlighting the potential £14K a year deal, you said it could not be true; you insisted it had always been Parish Council policy to defend the Green Belt. Well now it isn’t if the price is high enough. And, presumably, you have now read the minutes of the Parish Council and Planning Committee so you’re not going to accuse me again of making things up.
At the SIFE inquiry I put it to Slough’s planning team that the case they advanced for defending the Green Belt then would be used against them when it comes to Heathrow’s turn. They acknowledged that. Any decision by Mr Cameron will be followed with years of legal challenge on a variety of factors. We don’t need to make the lawyers’ jobs easier.
And can’t we have a conversation based on facts without suggestions of personal animosity, dismissing those who choose to work outside the Parish Council as “ignorant”, or resorting to a pissing contest about how hard somebody works for the community. It’s unhelpful. Yes there are some harsh things said on this site. That’s fact of modern life unfortunately, particularly for politicians. I’m not defending it, but just look at how the House of Commons conducts itself.
Nobody doubts how hard several councillors work for the community and references to personal tragedy are out of place here. The question was about judgement and keeping promises.
Well Andy-I guess that once again we will agree to disagree! I did not describe “those who choose to work outside the parish council” as ignorant-but those who constantly complain and vent their spleen on this site without establishing the facts! Those who work outside the parish council do a fantastic job–the CCA’s youth work is a prime example and there are others. The angst posted on this site is unhelpful in my opinion and your expression regarding what you say is a “contest” is not appreciated-time and again the parish council is accused of doing nothing which is far from the truth! Judgement and keeping promises are made in good faith, time and circumstances may well change this perspective.
yes well I think we know where hood stands on a short list one going round like the demented rat pull ing down stop third run signs and sife ones from lamp posts if he was taller he would have found it easier I was told he was jumping up like a demented rat its a shame he’s not man size and I think he’s in love with Heathrow airport the rainers the swan,s and slough council and motorway widening dirty grundon and the sife all so he said at a meeting with thirty people that he owns speedway farm that’s a motorways widening dump for they lorry’s I no that’s not the truth and told the liar hood so he all so said that he owned a interest in a building firm that did work for BAA it,s not my fault if hood tell,s lies about what he own,s I can not help that hood s a big liar next time people in Colebrook should vote hood out and his bully gang that’s all ways been I think back up by bent hobby bobby ,,police,, they harassment of people in the village has got people killed if they telling the truth but they,s a lot of liars in the village I have even been frightened by silly simple simion the useless police chief that can not even nick a thief that’s said he stole my kid,s money box and burgled my house two times and the police let him off a lorry driver dump ed rubbish I had to clear it up same the useless slough police that can not cash a cold round hear again let him off why not even a fine
Are you aware that the chairman by removing these illegal signs is saving those who put them up from prosecution? I am sorry Keith but your extreme protestations, your railings against all authority-be it the police, sbc or the parish council are so extreme they actually mitigate against your argument. As regards your submission that “they harassment of people in the village has got people killed” who? when? where? Regrettably you are now perceived as an individual whose own arguments transpose against the points he is endeavouring to make! Try to be factual instead of somewhat nebulous statements, then perhaps you would get more support for your point of view!
No if the chairman was putting them up and fighting Heathrow airport it would have been legal I think the parish council is a waste of one hundred thousand a year and they s very little to show of the twenty million spent under the dictator hood people should vote him and his mates out and slough council should close the parish council down and save the million sss it cost s hood said he was a motor expansion man that try ed too get a M4 with twenty lanes on it ,,, if we did not fight the pollution would be killing people every day and that the how people that get, s this things because they going to gain is how they killing people and they all lie to get what they want at the time I was told by the motorway expansion Heathrow would close I only wish they’d been right still got to get to bed as a mass demo in the village with a true leader Adam and his van I hope it do not break down in the Heathrow tunnel or he will get nick,ed
Oh dear–you are so wrong you really are. I cannot put into words my total disagreement with your antithesis of what has happened in the last twenty years. Stand for election next time or when there is a vacancy, perhaps you will then understand the way things happen. You did not answer my questions as to who has been killed, when, where and how the parish council is responsible. Your personal dislike of Cllr Hood is palpable and paramount-it warps your judgement and you should really try to be more constructive. The way you conduct your emails and comments does you no credit!
pollution is killing people in village the parish council has let Heathrow put they dirty NO2 bus through the village and close ,ed a road by the blue ribbon café that used to get people out the village to help the wealthy house on that road tan house farm be ing one of them and it need,s too be open again like the village hall ,,twenty years ago before hood the bus es and car s did not go through the village it was access ONLY and it was policed I know as my dad got nicked for going through with out stop ing people on that road are breathing in all the no2 in 1929 they build the by pass to stop the cars going through the village and hood with his mates Heathrow airport has put them car s bus es lorry’s back through the historic village that dick turnip ride through his horse black Bess now the horse would be cough ing and drop dead with no2 poisoning,,, close Heathrow airport down now and I know thanks too big mouth john liar & bosis that the soil from the runway will be going through my garden and bosis wants to put soli from, HS2 through … richsing s park and then through my garden and its all only for six year so no compulsory stealing so they have too pay me rent and the Harassment & bullying I suffered because of this and I have had from them its going to cost them and then I can get that story told in the papers TV and et a ghost wright ,er too wright my book about the batte of mego hill and the fussywassys
oooooooooooooo well no NEW S ON HEATHROW airport I will be in the village to see the MP ADAM if I talk to him I may ask why we can not be in royal Windsor council and save all of us 200 quid a year and get ride of the waste of space parish council
The Parish Council has very little say on Planning Application matters other than a consultative body. Some many time the Parish Council has told SBC that it does not want an application approved etc. but SBC has ignored the Parish Council and gone ahead. Yes it may seem bad for the Parish Council to take money from the Grunions of this world but by late visa S106 agreements they are entitled to receive money from these people and try and spend it within the community. That is the fact sometimes that perhaps the Parish Council will take this money as compensation for having their letter of objection which is made on behalf of the parish residents rejected.
Whether or not morally this is good it does provide income for the parish as th council own no assets that could make money , they don’t have assets like that of village hall they don’t charge for use of the recreation ground or have swimming pool to hire out etc.
Income is based on the money they get from the precept and anything else will help towards projects that the council need to provide for the community
Thank you for that Leslie…and it’s good to hear from you!
So….where exactly DOES the money go???
We as villagers do not benefit from anything the Parish Council can extract from these large conglomerates!
We have Christmas lights….that stretch a few yards from the centre of the village….two Christmas trees….and?… well NOTHING!!
The annual budget appears to exceed much more than villagers actually receive?
How does that work???… (you know.. NON PROFITABLE??)
Oh Lesley…..and PS..
Just how would the Parish Council know ANYTHING about what ‘residents’ need?
They NEVER interact to find out!!!
They STILL remain a ‘secret cult’!!!
Scary!!
Sorry…. LESLIE…
Aaaaaaand….don’t get me started on the Village Hal.!!!!!!!!!
Aaaaaaand….don’t get me started on the Village Hall…!!!!!!!!!
I have just been going through all the ‘Councillors’ so called personal ‘manifestos’.
It appears not ONE has delivered any of their ‘promises’??
How on EARTH do they get away with it??
Does anyone know when the next Parish Council meeting is…. I believe there are some very serious questions to be asked?
*** comment moderated ***
the M4 …no2,, would be killing people now if we had not STOPED them we WON THEN and we can WIN now WITH NO IF,S AND BUT,S NO THIRD RUNWAY they said 25 year ago if they did not get it THE TWENTY LANES M4 then Heathrow would close I wish they was right CLOSE HEATHROW DOWN FOR GOOD SOME TIME YOU HAVE TOO FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT,S
I HAVE A DREAM ONE DAY HEATHROW AIR PORT WILL CLOSE
my dream is too make money on shares and close Heathrow airport down for good ,,, done the first thing by getting in to FJET at 50p on the 23th,,, 70p now on a tip,, ,,i got from sh sh oo sh you know who they say it go to 250p hope so ,, insider dealing what ooooo,,,and too clear the foot path of rubbish half way through that one the seed of the devil will not like that one get behind me satin I cast you too the hell fire have ,,a happy new year and do not get too piss ,ed that you can not drive pink,,y and perk,y will be about in they panda car and they jail you
I have a dream that I will make money on shares in the new year and SEE HEATHROW AIRPORT CLOSE DOWN ….done the first one with FJET,,, bought on the 23th at 50p now 70p so have too work on the CLOSE ING OF HEATHROW AIRPORT IN SPRING and clear the rubbish from the back foot path that piss shh sh sh you know who off still ,, have a happy new year and let,s hope Heathrow will burn down in the new year and is infested with flesh eating fleas and jail daves for not putting his prudential 370 thousand pounds in money and got shares in the ,,no,, independent airport commission list of interest that he was meant too do by LAW and he could not have been independent too the hub plan as I think the Hilton was in the way and its owned by prudential I seen a good jail for him