Land-deal council in Tory vote dilemma
A DILEMMA over the sale of land in South Derbyshire has resulted in almost the entire Tory group on the district council having to seek permission to take part in a vote.
The situation arose after it emerged that the councillors would be voting on a decision which could have led to a Tory party donor making money.
-

Heather Wheeler
The council's independent Standards Committee will tonight decide if they should be allowed to vote.
The problem relates to two pieces of land, both of which have connections to Tory donor Richard Perkins who, either personally or through his company, has given £23,000 to South Derbyshire Conservative Association since 2005.
One plot at Church Gresley is owned by the council, which wants to sell it to a housing developer to build on.
But Mr Perkins owns the mineral rights to the plot, meaning he has a legal entitlement to open a mine there.
If the council sale is to proceed, the authority must first buy Mr Perkins' mineral rights, deciding, by a vote, how much to pay him.
The second piece of land is in Swadlincote and is owned by Mr Perkins but is needed by the council to provide street parking to another development.
The land is the subject of a covenant which restricts what it can be used for and can only be annulled through negotiations with Mr Perkins.
Labour figures have raised concerns that there may be a conflict of interest in 20 Tory councillors making decisions on matters in which Mr Perkins stands to make a profit.
But Tory group leader Heather Wheeler maintains there is no conflict because money Mr Perkins previously donated was only used to campaign for South Derbyshire's Conservative parliamentary candidate, not by any councillors.
Mrs Wheeler, who is also the current Tory South Derbyshire parliamentary candidate, said: "Clearly, the money has been used for general election campaigning. That means there would only be a prejudicial interest if I, as the current candidate, or my husband, who is also a councillor, wanted to take part in any vote. We are not seeking to.
"The other councillors had no day-to-day involvement with the general election campaign fund and, therefore, are seeking dispensation to take part."
But the Labour candidate for South Derbyshire, Mike Edwards, said special care had to be taken at tonight's meeting.
"South Derbyshire District Council should be taking particular care on this highly sensitive matter to demonstrate that they are being transparent in their actions," he said.
The committee can allow the councillors to take part in the decisions if they feel they have not been prejudiced by any of Mr Perkins' donations.
Members will also consider how fair a council vote would be if the largest political group was completely barred from voting.







2 Comments
by Alan Graves, Derby
Friday, February 12 2010, 11:24AM
“This is typical of party politics and bears a resemblance to the national Expenses Scandal. The Conservatives are very much hand in glove here and should, irrespective of the reference to the independent standards committee, declare an interest and leave the meeting when the vote is taken. Party politics should be removed from these situations, you'd have thought some common sense and integrity would have filtered through the expenses scandal. Maybe not?”
by Kevin Richards, Swadlincote
Friday, February 12 2010, 9:54AM
“If as Mrs Wheeler has stated that these donations were for parliamentary purposes only then a legitimate question would be "Was the donation deposited into an account specifically for this purpose and named as the Parliamentary Account or was it placed into an account of the South Derbyshire Conservvative Association which finances leaflets not only for Parliamentary uses but also local candidates in District and County Elections. I think not, if so it would show in their accounts and on the Electoral Commission site showing donations. This is obviously in my opinion and no doubt many other reasonable minded citizens a conflict of interest”