|
Travellers in Crawley
|
|
|
|
For over 30 years politics in Crawley has been dominated by the local Labour group. The Executive decided what was going to be done, the elected
members agreed and away they went regardless of the real, measurable advantage or benefit to the local community in the long term.
|
|
All that has changed now with the majority down to only 1 seat. This is very fortunate for the people of Crawley as the Executive Committee
decided that Crawley should enjoy two Traveller sites within the town boundary - I repeat TWO sites. There are only 7 transit traveller sites in West Sussex and our Labour party senior members wanted TWO
(1 transit and 1 residential) in an overcrowded urban area! I should add that nowhere in the County or close by are there any urban Traveller sites!
|
|
Until recently this idiotic decision would have gone through with no more than a nod BUT fortunately, following the recent elections, there is now
an effective opposition. The opposition demanded and got a full council meeting to decide. This meeting was held at the Hawth on the 11th January 2006 - over 1000 members of the public attended.
|
|
The opposition presented clear, precise and erudite reasons against creating Traveller sites within the urban area of Crawley. They were also able
to show that information supplied to support the suitability of the two sites, by the Executive Committee, was erroneous. All the supporters of the plan could do was waffle, prevaricate or read from
prepared statements that actually made little or no sense whatever.
|
|
Whilst the Mayor (a Labour man to the core) was summing up it became clear to the audience that he would not support the creation of the sites. The faces of the Executive
Committee members were as black as thunder and Cllr. Chris Redmayne (who’s trying to push this through) could clearly be seen muttering in the manner of Prof. Quirrell at a Quidditch match.
|
|
When it came to the vote the sites were defeated 18 votes to 11 - had those elected members that were more concerned with their position in the party than in the welfare of
their constituents not abstained then it would have been 23:11. I take my hat off to the Mayor, which may surprise a few, he voted against the party for the 1st time in 35yrs. By his own admission he
will probably suffer for it. Cllr. Redmayne was nodding in vigourous agreement at this point.
|
|
What happens next? Technically the Executive Committee reconsider their position on this matter. The debate takes place on Wednesday 18th January 2006 at K2. With such a
resounding defeat, failure to abandon the earlier proposals could well lead to moments of extreme interest which would certainly be picked up by the national press and TV.
|
|
So, that’s it then? Well, not really as another very worrying aspect of this matter came to light during the Hawth debate. The land on which the proposed sites would have
been built does not belong to Crawley Borough Council but to English Partnership. Initially the council advised that they had consulted everybody concerned and that this presented no problem.
|
|
In a letter dated 23rd December 2005 English Partnership wrote to the council explaining that they would not consider selling the land for Traveller sites as they
considered it unsuitable and that they had future plans for it.
|
|
This letter arrived sometime over the Xmas break and was opened by a council officer on 3rd January 2006. An official copy of this letter was not made available to all the
elected members until the evening of 11th January!!! 8 repeat 8 whole days after it arrived!!!
|
|
That a letter of such importance was withheld beggars belief BUT it gets much worse. It transpires that the Labour group had a copy on the evening of the 9th January 2006.
Pat Tinsley (Head of Democratic Services!!) explained that the Labour group were in the building that evening. (No possible chance that they were discussing the meeting on Wednesday, Pat?) So, that’s OK
then? If only! Guess what? The opposition group were also in the building that night. Discussing the up coming debate maybe?
|
|
Nobody wanders around the Town Hall at night without the full knowledge of the Dept. of Democratic Services. Rooms have to be booked and services / teas and coffees
etc. laid on. When council members are in the building or going to be in the building then the Head of Dept. is fully aware!
|
|
A bit smelly? But one is forced to ask what happened during the intervening 6 days between arrival and copies being sneaked to the Labour group? Was it lost? Probably not.
Was it left languishing in some minor council officers in tray? Very unlikely. I rather suspect that upon its arrival, the post person, realising its import, whisked it up to Pat’s office for her
immediate attention. Then what happened?
|
|
At this point, if I was writing a tale about skulduggery in government, I would probably put together a story line that went along these kinda lines... P rings C
- ‘Houston, we have a problem. Better get over PDQ’. C hotfoots over. Letter read. C realising that if opposition knows too soon motion could be lost. Does a Baldrick and hatches a ‘cunnin’ plan
m’Lord. OK, P here’s what we do - ‘I’ll take a copy with me. You prepare official copies and get your boys to post them to each member on Monday night. Get minion to drop in copies for each of our
group at Monday evening meeting. I’ll put something together in the meantime.
|
|
Clearly the above paragraph is only a fictional story line and no credence should be given to it at all.
|
|
Of course it is not possible that the Head of Democratic Services colluded with the leader of the Executive Committee to hide or delay vital new information that should
have been made available to all elected members simultaneously and as quickly as possible.
|
|
What actually happened to that important letter between arrival on the 3rd January and it plopping onto the door mat of our elected members on the 11th needs to be
established ASAP. One is also forced to wonder if this is a unique occurrence.
|
|
Why was this vital information kept from the democratically elected members that just happened to be opposing the motion?
|
|
Welcome to Crawley!
|
