11 March 2010

Laudably councillor Matthew Lock was potentially acting in the best interests of the residents; a difficult decision, nevertheless, this is precisely why there are rules in place to provide guidance. In the event, the prudent practice of disclosure could still have been followed without harming the outcome and would have avoided any come back.

However, this matter raises a wider issue in relation to Matthew Lock; namely does the end justify the means - how does Matthew Lock's approach in one area reflect his possible stance in others and what confidence can we have in the recommendations of any committees he chairs?

Could his overview of the land raise issue be influenced by believing that the end does justify the means? If this is the case where do all the objectors stand over land raise?

Furthermore, can Mr Lock demonstrate that this concept was not used with the Newhaven Incinerator enquiry when he was in charge and over 14,000 objections were seemingly ignored.

Hastings & St Leonards Observer - 11 March 2010

The problem with this ruling is that it now calls into question every other area where he has had any involvement, which subsequently becomes tainted