I AM proud to be part of a noble minority in this country – those who bother to vote in council elections.

I visit Colne Valley Leisure Centre just once a year, and when I do, the only exercise I get is of my democratic rights.

Those of us who trudge down to the polling station three years out of four are a minority – ranging from just under a half of eligible voters in Denby Dale to barely a third in Newsome.

Most residents don’t bother taking part in Kirklees Council elections, whether through ignorance, apathy or despair. And I’m beginning to think I should join them.

If I was forced to subscribe to any political ideology, it would be democracy – the belief that those who make decisions affecting our lives should have a mandate to do so.

That’s why I’m against the monarchy and the House of Lords. That’s why I’m suspicious of academy schools. And that’s why I vote in council elections. But today, I wonder why I bother.

In the light of last week’s decision to allow 294 homes to be built at Lindley Moor, I feel like paraphrasing Ted Heath: “Who runs Kirklees? Is it the councillors, accountable to the people at the ballot box, or is it the officers, whom residents cannot remove?”

For those of you who haven’t been following the Lindley Moor controversy, I will try to summarise.

Last month the council’s Huddersfield Planning Sub-committee voted eight to seven to refuse permission for Miller Homes to build on land off Cowrakes Road and Weatherhill Road.

Residents, who feared the development would pile pressure on Lindley’s already stretched roads and schools, were jubilant.

But wait. There was a problem. A Kirklees officer at the meeting insisted that the sub-committee come up with valid reasons for refusing planning permission.

There is nothing unusual about this, in fact it has happened at nearly every planning meeting I’ve attended.

The officer was quite right to remind councillors they needed solid reasons for refusing to allow Miller Homes to build on land which Kirklees allocated for housing 15 years ago. Otherwise defeat at appeal would be almost inevitable.

The councillors who opposed the home-building then came up with several reasons for refusing the plan: pressure on the road network, air pollution, over-subscribed schools etc.

But again and again, council officials told these elected politicians that their reasons were not good enough, that these were not valid grounds to refuse the application.

I am no expert on planning law, but as someone who has sat through dozens of planning meetings, I consider myself a well-informed layman.

And it seemed to me that the reasons given for refusal were valid – the kind of justifications I’ve heard many times before when developments are refused permission.

That is not to say that Miller Homes would definitely have lost on appeal. But the council would certainly have been in with a fighting chance.

However, Kirklees officials did not share my view. By this stage, the meeting had been going on for nearly eight hours and both sides effectively declared a draw.

The sub-committee agreed that it would delay deciding the reasons for refusing planning permission until its next meeting.

I am confused, to put it mildly, by what happened next.

Last week, the sub-committee met again but, rather than haggle over reasons for refusal, they considered the proposal all over again. And this time, the housing plan passed by eight votes to seven.

How can this be right? How can the same planning application be voted on twice within a month?

The housing plan was rejected at the first meeting. Miller Homes is of course free to appeal, or to submit a different planning application – perhaps involving fewer homes and thus less impact on the area.

But I don’t see how it’s fair that the developer got a second crack at winning permission for its original plan.

It rather reminds me of the attitude of European Union officials when Irish voters rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001: “Fascinating to get your opinion, chaps. However, you seem to have voted the wrong way. Would you like another go?”

The council’s unaccountable officials said they were trying to save taxpayers from being saddled with hefty legal bills if Miller Homes won on appeal.

I don’t believe it was a certainty that the developer would have triumphed.

But let us assume for a moment that Miller Homes was bound to win on appeal, that the house-building was sure to go ahead and that refusing permission would achieve nothing except burdening the taxpayer with the cost of defending a hopeless position.

Even if this were the case, there still comes a point when officers have to stop advising and start implementing the decisions of elected councillors – even if they are foolish ones.

We elect these people to decide how to spend our money. There is no guarantee they will do it well.

But if you are unsatisfied with the way your councillor is allocating your money, there is a way you can try to remove them.

No such remedy exists for Kirklees officers.