Friday, 4 January 2013
Last nights planning meeting
I know not to interfere in the quasi-judicial business of planning and planning meetings. Those members who sit on the committee have a daunting task especially when the judicial bit prevents them from pre-determination and certainly the dangers of interested parties lobbying to get their particular issue passed or refused. When I sat on this committee as I did for four years, the dangers of taking heed of such approaches was regarded as a heinous act likely to be subject to a visit from the ombudsman or worse. So I empathise with the role members of the committee play in the whole democratic planning process. Whilst under the new governance guide lines the process seems more, shall we say 'relaxed',but proven contravention could result in criminal prosecution and this is new! Members of the public may not be aware of just how intimidating this issue and being at the centre of a planning debate can be and how vulnerable members are or feel when emotions are running high. I understand that last night was indeed very uncomfortable for members who were trying to do their duty in making Christchurch a better place by making visionary decisions and as a result I have no problem with the outcomes. Indeed this morning I wrote to the Town Centre Councillors urging them to pursue the promised business plan for Druitt from interested parties known to them with all due haste so that this matter can be resolved to mutual satisfaction. It is now for them to work with their community under the CBC policy guide lines. So it is now, as it has always been for them to follow this through, there is however considerable urgency in view of the budgetary constraints.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dear Councillor Nottage, having just read the above post, may I respectfully make known some observations appertaining to the post.
1.It has been said that the Leader’s behaviour in supporting the application by Morrisons might have bee less than impartial.
2.Unfortunately sir you seem to be a little confused. Pre-determination may be defined in law as “a mind closed to the planning merits of the decision in question.” (Rix LJ) It definately does not prevent Members from taking account of the views of their constituents or others, provided that the judgment is made on material planning grounds. However, this is not a matter for the Ombudsman. Predetermination was a matter for the Common Law, not the Standards Board.
3. The Leader seems to have passed his four years on Planning - in one case accusations of failure to declare an interest were levied against him but were not upheld - in ignorance of the fact that bias and predetermination have always been matters for the Law.
4.It might be thought that in the paragraph starting with “Members of the public”, the Leader is accusing those members who supported refusal of being swayed by non-material planning considerations. Members of the public who were present at the Special Planning Committee Meeting in June considering the supermarket application felt very strongly that certain Members felt vulnerable and intimidated when the Leader was demonstrating by his emphatic body language his wish that the Beagle Site application was being considered.
5. The duties of Members of the Planning Control Committee is not to make “visionary decisions” to “make Christchurch a better place.” That surely is the responsibility of the two Policy Committees and particularly in this field of those considering the emerging Local Development Framework Core Strategy - or new Local Plan - but simply to assess whether or not an application conforms to the Planning Policy Framework.
6. Unless things have changed, it is not the statutory role of Ward Councillors to pursue policy decisions. Their job is to “represent their constituents, individually and collectively, in matters affecting their interests.” The task of pursuing a business plan is the task of those proposing a change, assisted by the Officers if that is decided by the Council’s Policy Committees. It is unfair, but typical, of the Leader to seek to apparently push these duties onto Ward Members who may not have the necessary skills to deal with them.
Many thanks for this comment and can I say from the start that that an open exchange through this blog is in my opinion a more ethical and businesslike way of communicating your point rather than you resorting to unpleasant rhetoric and accusation on the comments part of the local high quality newspaper. At the Council Offices I am always available and I value involvement from Councillors members of the public and officers.
If I may take each of your issues in the same spirit that you posted.
1 I made it quite clear to all parties directly and through this blog that I would not involve myself in the issue you refer to and I kept a balanced view throughout. You may be interested to learn that at my surgery on Saturday three residents complained to me about the decision on in respect of this Supermarket application and refusal. My fellow ward Councillor attended and spoke at the meeting. Your suggestion that I was anything but impartial is simply wrong.
2 You seem to have missed the point that I was making about the difficulties members of the planning committee are faced with when doing their duty. A new code based on the seven Nolan principles and adopted by CBC has relevance. I made the point to again emphasise the onerous task at hand for Planning Committee members.
3 This again I would have to strongly disagree; at CBC training of members is undertaken on a regular basis and all Councillors cognisant of the constraints associated with the committees they are part of. Clearly you are close to the Council demonstrated by your reference to an unfounded accusation against me when doing my duty on the planning committee so you know this to be the case.
4 I make no such point and take your misguided interpretation as simply mischievous. If you are able to identify the members it would be very interesting to establish if they confirm your view.
5 Your response shows a remarkable naivety in the whole process of delivering efficient process and outcomes. To suggest that in executing CBC policy members should not be visionary or have the objective of making Christchurch a better place is simply misguided.
6 Your conventional but outdated view that the only duty for ward Councillors is to react to residents is also misplaced. You are clearly not aware of the responsibilities involved and your reference to the skills of Councillors shows ignorance of the partnerships between officers and Councillors. I suggest that you are in fact out of touch. Read ‘the brilliant Council of the future’ KMG report 2012.
I am not allowed the anonymity you enjoy, but endeavour through this blog (now five years old) and in my duties at CBC to introduce more transparency rather than less. This exchange demonstrates that direction, my recent meetings with Community representatives resulted in a better understanding of their concerns and theirs of mine. I will despite your rather cynical and unpleasant comments in the afore mentioned newspaper continue.
I conclude by asking you if in your opinion we have a stronger more engaged Town Centre community than in the past?
Post a Comment