Letter to the editor: Was Horsham District Council presented with all the facts on West of Ifield?
Recent debate about West of Ifield raises an important democratic question that deserves public clarity ['How dare they', Crawley Observer, Jan 19].
Three years ago, councillors at Horsham District Council voted to include the West of Ifield option in their emerging Local Plan. That Plan has since been rejected by the Planning Inspector. It is now legitimate to ask whether councillors — including those who supported the option at the time — were in possession of all the material information they should reasonably have had before voting. If relevant risks, constraints, or consequences were not fully set out, then that original decision cannot credibly be treated as settled or binding. This is not about party politics, blame, or hindsight. It is about the integrity of democratic decision-making. Local Plan votes are policy choices, not contracts. When a Plan fails Examination, councils are entitled — and arguably obliged — to revisit strategic options, especially where new evidence has emerged or earlier assumptions no longer hold. Crucially, reconsidering a previous vote in such circumstances is not an admission of wrongdoing. It is a correction of process. Inspectors routinely expect councils to reflect honestly on why a Plan failed and to adjust course accordingly. If material information was missing or unclear at the time of the 2024 vote, then councillors are perfectly entitled to say so — and to take a different view now. Doing so would strengthen public trust, not undermine it. Democracy does not mean being locked forever into a decision taken under imperfect conditions. It means being willing to revisit choices when evidence, scrutiny, and due process demand it. Richard W. Symonds MCIPD Ifield Street, Ifield Village Crawley, West Sussex