Thread by @Andrewwood17

Some thoughts about Robert Jenrick responses at HoC Select C'tee today
Long answers from the Minister meant not as much ground covered as you would expect & nearly all his responses repeats of what he had already said
See 1st 49 minutes here
parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/64…
1/

Jenrick said that only meetings had to be declared in
his decision letter, even if you accept that a dinner sat between Richard Desmond and four of his employees was not a meeting, Annex A to his decision letter shows a list of representations made after the enquiry closed,
2/

all were in the form of letters
So not clear why a dinner + text message exchanges should not also be disclosed?
This again suggest knowledge of his dinner & text messages in the department was very low & not documented anywhere
3/

Jenrick says that he read Inspectors report & that it was the source of viability concern
It is 166 pages long (content page below), I do not think it does say that the viability was at stake, says opposite
Report sent to MHCLG 20th Nov
Purdah ends 12th Dec
When did he get it?
4/

Why would a Secretary of State read 166 pages of detail between 16th December when re-appointed & end December (Christmas!) when he decided to approve
There is also no evidence that he was sent the full report, only a 3+ page summary that did not mention viability as an issue
5/

So Jenrick is asking us to accept that he read the 166 page report at the beginning of a new government & spotted things that his officials did not?
If he did spot things that were not in the summary produced by his officials where is the evidence that he then asked Q why?
6/

If from reading the Inspectors report he found things that were material why were they not then raised in his own decision letter? as that letter does not mention viability as an issue despite his later claim that it was a material planning consideration?
7/

Very odd comment from Jenrick that his decision was binary, yes or no & he could not predict the future
This was a brownfield site which had already been demolished close to Canary Wharf (he says he used to live a mile away & worked at CW) it was a certainty that if he had
7/

rejected it then one day it would have been developed subject to market conditions, this is a prime site
But the Minister can add planning conditions to his decision letter i.e. asking for an early stage review to boost affordable housing £
But he did not take that opportunity
8/

So I am not sure we know much more about what happened & why especially about key issues as Jenrick did not really answer questions
Next step will be FOI responses, I have 2 outstanding & will submit more, it will be up to @mhclg as to how they answer them
But this mess
9/

continues while these questions remain unresolved, which means it is going to be very difficult for the next Minister to make a decision on this scheme as that will put spotlight back on the 1st quashed decision
10/