Cold comfort at Grove Farm

Realistically, the miracle will probably be hard to come by. So, instead, it looks as if we will have to rely on Two Jags displaying some sound judgment.

After all, there are plenty of grounds for disallowing the application to build on the 12.5 acre site, not least of which is this little matter of democracy.

Labour has been indulging in much point-scoring just lately. The hapless Tories have been accused of "ineptitude, ignorance and ideology. They have misled voters and the whole affair has been another Tory U-turn".

Yes, I think we have the message. There is a General Election in May coinciding with the district council elections and I would guess that Millbank has ordered the Labour rank and file on to the parapet in readiness. Hence the frenzied activity.

However, we'll take a closer look at that one in a moment. But first, let me say I find it hard not to sympathise with councillors threatened with a surcharge. This was the possibility spelled out to them by the council's director of corporate services, Philip Betts.

He told the technical services committee that elected members could face financial penalties if they opposed the Grove Farm scheme. A penalty could be levied on anyone who scuppered the application without "good planning grounds" should the developers win on appeal.

Clever one, that. For such wording neatly compartmentalises the issue, disqualifying all other points that might be introduced.

For example, what about arguments unconnected with "good planning grounds? There could be any number of reasons why an individual would desire that green space should not be destroyed.

Indeed, it is highly likely that many of the Grove Farm objectors merely opposed the plans because they didn't want to see any more of Worcester's open land covered in concrete, a perfectly sound argument in itself.

Nevertheless, such entreaties would probably not conform to the intentional legal straitjacket as defined by the confines of good planning grounds.

Nothing new here. This curtailment of options is a familiar tactic when authorities are trying to push road schemes through. Consultation may appear commendably democratic exhibitions at the town hall, usual flim-flam but the public is invariably asked which of the options are preferred, not whether a road is desired at all.

Worcester's worthies were between a rock and a hard place. And while we may mourn such capitulation, we must also sympathise with councillors who may have families to support and mortgages to pay faced with a fiscal punishment of unknown severity.

Voters should put themselves in their elected representatives' place and then ask themselves whether they would have been willing to sacrifice all on this issue.

Judging by remarks being made by the Labour opposition, it would appear that the inference is that the Tories should have stuck to their guns.

Interesting. Perhaps it's time we had a recap.

Labour ruled Worcester for two decades and became unstuck when the party whip started cracking too loudly. The Grove Farm battle was a textbook example.

But many readers will remember the rot really set in when Labour attempted to destroy Cripplegate Park and erect a supermarket, a scheme of breathtaking absurdity that would, if allowed, have created an unbroken sprawl of concrete from the city centre to St John's.

All this is history now, but it does seem that Labour's new converts to green space have been suffering from a bad attack of collective amnesia just lately.

For did they, or did they not, try to browbeat the populace over Grove Farm? Did this not also lead to heated scenes in the Guildhall between councillors and protesters? And were we not treated to lecture after lecture by the great and the good about Worcester's desperate need for employment land?

Heavens above. The way some people are talking now you would think that Labour had been fighting to save Grove Farm all along. What a hoot. The real truth of the matter was that, back then, anybody who questioned the need to cover Worcester in tarmac was deemed to be a troublemaker or to have lost their senses.

Who's kidding who? The local Labour Party became so jumpy about dissent that they began firing at anything that moved. A symptom of this was when they tried unsuccessfully to take The Phillpott File before the Press Complaints Commission.

But back to the present.

Colin Layland, writing to this paper, believes democracy died when the Grove Farm application was given the nod. He hopes when it is called in by the Secretary of State, it is turned down because of the way it was determined.

This brings me to another aspect to this affair the highly-principled actions of the five councillors who voted against the development. They were Mary Drinkwater, Neil Monkhouse, Ray Turner, Stan Knowles and Mike Layland.

Their bravery was a perfect example of how those with differing philosophies can unite on a central issue.

Mike Layland, in particular, has fought relentlessly for his constituents over the Grove Farm saga. Public service at its very finest.

And talking of their bte noir, Labour has, of late, been desperate to spread the idea that the Independents are really Tories by another name.

This is why they've been very keen for the Tindies tag to catch on, anxious that the public will perceive Independents as being ersatz Tories.

Nice try. But what they fail to grasp is that a person who does not support Labour is not necessarily a Tory. It simply means that an individual doesn't like Labour. Yes, it must be a test of comprehension, but discarding the one does not always mean supporting the other.

Hence the growing support for the Independents in Worcester.

And while we're at it, let's nail all this talk about U-turns, a jibe levelled at the Conservatives. For is it not better to reconsider as the Tories did last December with the Blackpole business park than to barge ahead like Labour, who refused to listen to people?

Was it not this very same "we know best, do as you're told attitude that was to mark Labour's card in Worcester?

At least the Conservatives changed their minds when they saw the opposition to the Blackpole scheme. Such a re-think so quickly would have been unheard of during the days when Labour ruled the Guildhall.

For are people's memories so sketchy that they cannot recall the excesses of the last administration, where The Party was routinely put before The People?

Regardless of anyone's political persuasions, surely few would deny that local accountability was in crisis in Worcester leading up to last May's poll?

Anyway, it's all worth bearing in mind. Especially as the spring approaches.