Councillor Martin Curtis (who also took part in the 13 mile Peterborough Perkins run today)

MARTIN CURTIS: Why I became increasingly suspicious and then was proved right that a ‘legally questionable and a moral travesty’ was being hatched

By Councillor Martin Curtis , (Sacked last week as vice chairman of Fenland Council Planning Committee) Sunday, October 14, 2012
5:44 PM

WHEN I was first told I was being forced out as vice-chairman of planning because of “community perceptions” I said I was baffled.

That reason was then changed to a suggestion that I was “too emotionally involved with one particular planning application”, but Cllr Alan Melton then clarified that I had always listened to officers’ advice and had done nothing wrong legally; I now find myself concerned.

Whilst I put forward some strong evidence at that first planning meeting on August 29 I didn’t do what others have done in the past, which is to just say “Whittlesey residents overwhelmingly support Sainsbury therefore you must support it.” I have too much respect and knowledge of the planning process to do that – so instead I put forward clear reasons why I thought the Sainsbury application was the best in planning terms, a view I still hold. I make no apologies for doing that it is, after all, what I’m elected to do.

After August 29 I became increasingly suspicious that all was not as it should be and became concerned that the Tesco refusal was going to be revisited at the next planning meeting.

My view was that that would be legally questionable and a moral travesty given that the decisions of August 29 were made in front of over 250 people. So I made some extremely robust challenge throughout the period between August 29 and the date that the Tesco decision was changed and was consistently reassured that there was no move to revisit the principle of refusal.

Given that a legal and moral travesty did indeed take place it is clear I was right to challenge. And of course, after the about face, I stood up and made my views clear. Again, I am elected as a community leader – and this was a time when I had to stand up for the Whittlesey community.

I was told that one of the reasons for the suggestion that I got too emotionally close to one application was because I chose to meet with the Sainsbury team immediately after the meeting of August 29; I was very transparent about the fact that I did that, it was to make contact and to try to influence a few areas, such as the route of the proposed hopper bus and to offer to join the Friends of the Country Park group.

I have indeed made some suggestions about the hopper bus, asking for Sainsbury to consider altering the proposed routes to occasionally make stops at areas where we know high numbers of older people live and to pass on a request from one of my fellow councillors for a route to Eastrea and Coates to be considered. That influence and the decision to join the friends of the country park are both about me doing my job as a Councillor – trying to make things work for Whittlesey.

One of my challenges to Fenland since the debacle of September 19 has been that they have two jobs to do:

To sort out the legal muddle that has been created

To make sure that justice is done to the people of Whittlesey

To date I have seen much evidence that Fenland (quite rightly) are clear about the need to deal with the first task; in fact I have been active in this area too, having passed on my own views about how to improve planning at Fenland.

But I am extremely concerned that I have seen and heard nothing that suggests the Whittlesey factor is even on the radar. When canvassing yesterday I had a number of people say to me that the real reason for my sacking is because some at Fenland did not like the robust way I have represented my Town; unfortunately, I am starting to agree with them.

I have had many people express sympathy for me.

Please don’t feel sorry for me, it is true that I don’t think my sacking is just, but I also know that politics is a tough game and I almost certainly would have resigned from the planning committee anyway – I just wasn’t going to do it as a way of hiding the fact that I was being forced out.

If you want to have sympathy, feel sorry for what the decision to get rid of me seems to say to other Fenland councillors who feel the need to stand up and be counted for their own community and go out of their way to do it in a transparent and honest way; or feel sorry for my colleague Gary Swan who is working his heart out trying to get elected to Fenland District Council at a time when Whittlesey has been let down so badly.

Finally, I have spent a great deal of time trawling the internet and listening to others to see if there is any merit to the “community perceptions” argument. There is inevitably some criticism of me, but in the majority there is support.

However, I don’t hide from criticism; I like to be challenged, so I will keep thinking about those comments to see what there is to learn.

Latest News See all

10 comments

Martin Curtis battles endlessly and tirelessly for the cause of Martin Curtis. His work for the community is no greater than any other local politician or school governor, most of whom do not search for and hog the limelight quite so consistently and greedily as our Martin. He, along with all the other Whittlesey councillors, is in part responsible for the bill we shall all face. If you really believe they care about Whittlesey, go and have a look at the white plastic flats built right next to St Mary's church. That act of desecration was committed when dear Martin was Chair of Planning and two other Whittlesey councillors sat on the committee with him.

Report this comment

Lewie

Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Mr Curtis has been a long standing supporter of the town of Whittlesey! I have seen him in action at AJS and SHSCC, he is a fully committed man in getting the best for Whittlesey, There is a very concerning element of cover up with MELTON and HIS GANG ! I have e mailed Melton in a knid and plesant manner and he has not had the time in his busy period of sacking people but him self to reply ! Melton you are the main cause to all the probmlems, you must resign and do it quickly please

Report this comment

Whittleseyisjustasgoodasmarch

Wednesday, October 17, 2012
What you are missing Fenland Trev, is the far-reaching influence of Bruce Smith - including his influence over the editor of this newspaper, and via a convoluted route,key personal at FDC. Furthermore - there is no overwhelming support for Sainsbury at Whittlesey,far from it,most people prefer Tesco because they are perceived as cheaper - fact.

Report this comment

Fritz Bosch

Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Ian.F My words were not of kindness nor deigned to send you into a tangent, please just slow down and try to get your head round his, Yes Sainsbury was granted permission to build at the first meeting, BUT! It has come to light that the committee memebers were given inaccurate information regarding 69 houses, how would you feel if Sainsbury was decided on inaccurate information? You give the impression that you are on the side of fair play! I have every sympathy for the public that they were not informed prior to the second meeting of what could and did happen, however the fact is Martin Curtis has rounded up as many “followers” as possible for is cause. He failed to tell you that the public do not have a choice of store above planning laws, he was vice chair of planning and he knew the rules but he chose to lead the public to believe that they had a choice, this was wrong ask yourself why he put his job on the line when he knew the public could not choose, maybe because he used the public for his own ends? Tesco will not build a loss leading store as you say, they will eventually build a store in Eastra road, and unfortunately Sainsbury will go away and build in another town and you will still have to pay that increase in you council tax next year...

Report this comment

FenlandTrev

Monday, October 15, 2012
My words were not of kindness nor deigned to send you into a tangent, please just slow down and try to get your head round his, Yes Sainsbury was granted permission to build at the first meeting, BUT! It has come to light that the committee memebers were given inaccurate information regarding 69 houses, how would you feel if Sainsbury was decided on inaccurate information? You give the impression that you are on the side of fair play! I have every sympathy for the public that they were not informed prior to the second meeting of what could and did happen, however the fact is Martin Curtis has rounded up as many “followers” as possible for is cause. He failed to tell you that the public do not have a choice of store above planning laws, he was vice chair of planning and he knew the rules but he chose to lead the public to believe that they had a choice, this was wrong ask yourself why he put his job on the line when he knew the public could not choose, maybe because he used the public for his own ends? Tesco will not build a loss leading store as you say, they will eventually build a store in Eastra road, and unfortunately Sainsbury will go away and build in another town and you will still have to pay that increase in you council tax next year...

Report this comment

FenlandTrev

Monday, October 15, 2012
To respond to your very kind comments Fenland Trev, my feelings towards Tesco are probably due to my tendency to follow the herd.... Baarely believable I know, but there you go... I was at the meeting in August, at which Cllr Melton made it very clear to the members of the Planning Committee that they were to base their decision on the facts laid before them and were to disregard any comments feelings made by the general public at the meeting (which, as I recall, due to Martin's temporary now permanent absence from the planning committee, he was (as was I) just a member of the public and as such, entitled to express an opinion - much like several other members of the herd, sorry public who spoke. As I recall, the decision made by the Committee, (again based solely on the information presented to them) was to refuse permission to Tesco and instead authorise Sainsbury's to build their store along with a much needed country park. Now, perhaps the rules of planning should be explained to certain other members of the Committee - most notably Cllr French - that when a public meeting has been called, members of the public are to be made aware of subsequent planning meetings which relate to the matters discussed at the original meeting (in August). However, since Cllr. French (amongst others) appears unwilling unaware of these rules, we find ourselves in the current mess!! Surely, the subsequent meeting held at FDC (at which the Tesco's bid was subsequently approved) should be declared illegal (for the reasons detailed above), thereby clearing up this almighty mess in one fell swoop? This would avert the need for the (undoubted) increases in council tax which we are now likely to suffer (as a result of the actions of a few "rogue" councillors to quote from Cllr Melton) who require "re-training". Alternatively, perhaps the councillors responsible for this disaster (which includes ALL of the planning committee) could be asked to re-imburse FDC with the increased Council Tax charges which will fall due ? As I say, I am but a simple member of the herd (with a number of professional qualifications) but clearly my understanding of planning law is far less complete than yourself. I (foolishly believed) that when the Planning Committee are told to make decisions based on information provided to them (by both parties) that they would base their decision on that alone - when in reality, they are simply looking to the likes of Martin to raise or lower his thumb in the same style as an ancient Roman emperor to express his approval or refusal of the application!! Finally, I would love Tesco to build a (what will undoubtedly be a loss leading) store in Station Road, as this will provide the other members of the herd somewhere other than Somerfields to do their shopping. Still, Tesco have had planning permission for a number of years and done nothing... Mind you, all of that may change now, eh?

Report this comment

IanF

Monday, October 15, 2012
To respond to your very kind comments Fenland Trev, my feelings towards Tesco are probably due to my tendency to follow the herd.... Baarely believable I know, but there you go... I was at the meeting in August, at which Cllr Melton made it very clear to the members of the Planning Committee that they were to base their decision on the facts laid before them and were to disregard any comments feelings made by the general public at the meeting (which, as I recall, due to Martin's temporary now permanent absence from the planning committee, he was (as was I) just a member of the public and as such, entitled to express an opinion - much like several other members of the herd, sorry public who spoke. As I recall, the decision made by the Committee, (again based solely on the information presented to them) was to refuse permission to Tesco and instead authorise Sainsbury's to build their store along with a much needed country park. Now, perhaps the rules of planning should be explained to certain other members of the Committee - most notably Cllr French - that when a public meeting has been called, members of the public are to be made aware of subsequent planning meetings which relate to the matters discussed at the original meeting (in August). However, since Cllr. French (amongst others) appears unwilling unaware of these rules, we find ourselves in the current mess!! Surely, the subsequent meeting held at FDC (at which the Tesco's bid was subsequently approved) should be declared illegal (for the reasons detailed above), thereby clearing up this almighty mess in one fell swoop? This would avert the need for the (undoubted) increases in council tax which we are now likely to suffer (as a result of the actions of a few "rogue" councillors to quote from Cllr Melton) who require "re-training". Alternatively, perhaps the councillors responsible for this disaster (which includes ALL of the planning committee) could be asked to re-imburse FDC with the increased Council Tax charges which will fall due ? As I say, I am but a simple member of the herd (with a number of professional qualifications) but clearly my understanding of planning law is far less complete than yourself. I (foolishly believed) that when the Planning Committee are told to make decisions based on information provided to them (by both parties) that they would base their decision on that alone - when in reality, they are simply looking to the likes of Martin to raise or lower his thumb in the same style as an ancient Roman emperor to express his approval or refusal of the application!! Finally, I would love Tesco to build a (what will undoubtedly be a loss leading) store in Station Road, as this will provide the other members of the herd somewhere other than Somerfields to do their shopping. Still, Tesco have had planning permission for a number of years and done nothing... Mind you, all of that may change now, eh?

Report this comment

IanF

Monday, October 15, 2012
BUT IanF it is very much the concern of FDC if Martin Curtis has personal issues and is using the public to get even for his own ends. Sorry I think you are again misinformed it was not for the people at the meeting to vote it was for the Committee! And this just shows that you are not fully up to speed with this matter. I am sure Tesco will eventually loose patience with this fiasco and build in Station Road but it is not the right location. I assume you would like a Sainsbury store and that is your choice, but this matter has very deep hidden agendas and it needs to be addressed and I hope you will continue to worship Martin Curtis when you get your new council tax bill!

Report this comment

FenlandTrev

Monday, October 15, 2012
Well FenlandTrev, the reason that the majority of people in Whittlesey (at the public meeting in August) voted AGAINST Tesco was because they wanted Sainsbury's!! What feelings Martin (or may not) have toward the Sears' family are his concern - not ours!! Mind you,being as we're all sheep (as per on of your previous comments on a related feature) that's probably why we voted against Tesco!! Incidentally, if Tesco are SOOOOO desperate to build a store in Whittlesey (as they keep indicating) why not build in Station Road, where they already have planning permission? Baaa!!!

Report this comment

IanF

Monday, October 15, 2012
Martin Curtis is a self righteous, egotistical, self consuming individual who is looking for challenge and mischief he is starting new mischief on his blog regarding Roy Gerstner and Gary Swan At some point it should be ask why Martin is so emotionally involved in Supermarkets, we should look back at the time he was challenging the Station Road site and fighting for Tesco to go to Syers Lane, why is he now challenging Tesco and fighting for Sainsbury there is one common denominator in all of this Richard Sears why cant the public see this, Martin Curtis may have historic issues with the Sears family but he is using the people choice for his own revenge. Uncover this story John Elworthy if you dare

Report this comment

FenlandTrev

Monday, October 15, 2012

More news

Click here to read more of our digital publications