Related Photographs

Pyestock: MPs disappointed as Secretary of State agrees to pointless meeting

Local MPs James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) and Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) this week expressed disappointment that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (the Rt Hon John Denham, MP) has agreed to a meeting to discuss the Pyestock mega-depot development but only after a six week period to challenge the decision has elapsed and if no challenge to the decision itself is mounted and on the basis that he would be unable to comment.

James and Gerald described the offer of a meeting with John Denham therefore as "pointless".

They wrote jointly to the Secretary of State on 4th September 2009 demanding to know why no copy of the correspondence outlining the decision to approve the Pyestock development had been received, which Minister had made the decision on the Secretary of State's behalf and whether they could meet with him urgently to review the issues arising from the decision.

In his reply of 24th September 2009, John Denham said:

"I am satisfied that my officials followed the usual procedure of sending a copy of the correspondence to you… However, I do accept and apologise for the fact that an oversight unfortunately meant that our normal procedure of alerting constituency offices when such decisions are issued during recess was not followed…

"…we do not normally issue the name of the Minister(s) who made the decision on my behalf. However there is no legal reason why we cannot release the name and, in view of the interest which this fact seems to have generated in particular cases, I have decided to let it be known that Lord McKenzie took the decisions during his period as Duty Minister for this Department during the recess.

"You also requested a meeting with me to discuss the decision which has been issued. As you recognise, this would not be possible during the six week period during which the decisions can be challenged in the High Court. Beyond that date, it would still not be possible to meet if there is a challenge as any such meeting could be seen as prejudicing the outcome of any future decision. Were there to be no challenge, I would be willing to meet you to hear what you wish to say, but that would have to be on the basis that, now the decision has been made, I have no further jurisdiction in the matter and it would not be appropriate for me to comment".

James and Gerald are now discussing with local action group SPLAT the best way forward.