They tried twice. They broadcast our hand to the developer. Then they quietly waved away the public hearing. The Inspector allowed the appeal and now the houses will be built.
West Northants Council (WNC) didn’t just mishandle the Drovers Way planning appeal — they undermined it. Two attempts, same destination: the appeal Inspector allowed it, and now the development will go ahead.
To recap: the application was for 23 houses — 3 self-build and 20 affordable/social rent units. WNC policy allows sites outside the village confines only if they are under 1 hectare. This one wasn’t. I said in committee that the size limit matters and the application should be refused. The committee agreed. The applicant appealed.
That’s when the WNC Planning Department started running interference. Shortly afterwards, they produced a report for the next committee meeting arguing WNC should submit no evidence to the appeal because it was ‘doomed’. Not privately. Not internally. A public report — gift-wrapped for the appellant to read and use. I wrote about it here: this. The agenda item was withdrawn, but the report stayed publicly accessible.
The appeal was set down for a hearing — where all parties can make their case in person — on 20 January 2026. On the eve of the hearing we were told it would be postponed due to the Inspector suffering a bereavement.
Then, out of the blue, on 17 March we received notice that the appeal had been allowed — with no hearing at all.
How does a hearing simply vanish? Because WNC agreed it wasn’t necessary. They didn’t ask the Parish Council. They didn’t ask residents. They didn’t ask me. They just carried on, sidelining the very people who were meant to be heard.
And let’s be blunt: this is how the Planning Department keeps control. When councillors don’t do what officers want, the process somehow shifts until the ‘right’ outcome becomes inevitable.
I’ve written to the Interim Chief Executive to complain and to demand answers. (I’ve included the letter below.)
But in practical terms, this is the end of the road. The scheme will be built. Concerns about access, plot size, and cramming a high density of social housing into one corner of the village were never properly tested in public — because the public process was quietly switched off.
If you think this is acceptable — officers steering outcomes, councillors overruled by process, and residents shut out — then nothing changes. If you don’t, raise it: write to WNC, ask why the hearing was dropped, and demand that planning decisions are argued in the open, not managed behind the scenes.
And here’s the final insult: only a couple of weeks ago WNC launched a so-called Improvement Plan for the Planning Department. Yes, improvement is needed — badly. But this plan won’t deliver it, and I told Cabinet exactly that. It’s not fit for purpose because it airbrushes out the very behaviours that wrecked Drovers Way: officers briefing against their own committee decision, handing ammunition to an appellant, and then consenting to a process that shuts the public out. You don’t ‘improve’ planning by pretending these issues don’t exist.
email to Martin Henry, Interim CEX,
This decision has again excluded the involvement of the local member, the parish council, and local residents, undermining the democratic process.
It follows the earlier publication of a public report by the planning department – subsequently withdrawn but still visible online – which proposed offering no evidence to the appeal, further sabotaging the process.
Paragraph 26 states that while reference was made to the parish council’s 2022 survey, the Inspector had not been provided with any details. The hearing, which WNC prevented from taking place, would have been the means by which this information could have been given.
The reliance on the Brackley appeal and the Five Year Land Supply I consider to be unlawful, as the planning department does not seem to have applied the proper regulations. A separate email raising this issue remains unanswered. (as is the norm)
I would therefore like to ask:
- Who made the decision to scrap the hearing?
- Why ward members and the parish council were not consulted before agreeing to remove their ability to speak and present the case?
- Was that the intent to undermine further the democratic process?
- Why the planning department continues to act in such a cavalier and high‑handed manner?
- When we can expect a planning department that serves residents’ interests rather than avoiding matters it finds inconvenient?
- When the ongoing internal obstruction will cease, so that members are not reminded—implicitly or explicitly—of the many ways the department can compel compliance?