Anomalies arising from Planning Committee Meeting - Letter to Council's Chief Executive

[ghostofcecere]

What she is saying is that it was refused last time on the ground that 693 dwellings would produce unmanageable traffic, and nothing has changed with the revised application. Therefore if it is approved this time, the Committee has gone back on its previous decision due to political pressure, which is not allowed in the Planning process - a matter for the Ombudsman.

But isn't it on the agenda that a clearer explanation of the traffic report is to be given? So maybe they can over rule this decision based on the fact they are now able to make a better informed judgement based on this explanation?

[Diego_Sideburns]

But isn't it on the agenda that a clearer explanation of the traffic report is to be given? So maybe they can over rule this decision based on the fact they are now able to make a better informed judgement based on this explanation?

 

How so Diego? If the next meeting is properly run, I don't see how technical errors in the previous one (in their favour!) could be a grounds of appeal?

 

I feel that there were so many anomalies at the first meeting, amunition is likely to be still available from if for use even by those who benefitted from the decision at that meeting.

 

At the next meeting the councillors need to read/hear a clearer explanation of the traffic report, and there need to be no procedural hiccups like those at the last one. Then if a majority of the Committee members are of the opinion that their doubts on the original report have been clarified to their satisfaction, and they vote in favour of granting outline planning permission, the Council may get away with it, but it will depend on whether the residents think there anything needs to be investigated.

[Diego_Sideburns]

At last I've received the following reply from the Council's Chief Executive to my letter at the start of this thread:

 

 

I write in response to your email sent to me on 22 November 2007. I have now had an opportunity to consult with colleagues.

 

I understand that Councillor Bashforth has examined very carefully his obligations under the Councillor’s Code of Conduct and has made judgements with regard to his position.

 

Should anyone wish to challenge what I regard as lawful decisions made by the Council’s Planning Committee through the courts, then that is clearly a matter for them.

 

Your comments regarding the appearance of Councillors attending the meeting will be raised with them.

 

You also raised issues in relation to the conduct of the meeting and the inability to read the namecards. The Council Chamber was the only room of sufficient size available to facilitate to the meeting and the layout cannot be changed as the fixtures are permanent. Even if the meeting had been held in the regular committee room it is doubtful if everyone could have read the names plates due the number of people who attended the meeting. However, I note the point made and will consider them in relation to future meetings.

 

The planning application for the redevelopment of Boundary Park will be resubmitted to the Planning Committee on 11 December following the provision of amended plans involving changes to scale and mass of the proposed development. There will also be an opportunity to clarify issues of concern raised around the traffic impact.

 

I trust this answers your queries.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Andrew Kilburn

 

Chief Executive

________________________________________________________________________

 

I have sent the following reply:

 

 

Dear Mr. Kilburn,

 

I refer to your surprisingly brief reply to the many issues which I raised in my email of 18th November and reminder of 22nd November 2007.

 

1. Declaration of Interest

 

I note that Councillor Bashforth has examined very carefully his obligations under the Councillor’s Code of Conduct and has made judgements with regard to his position. You have not replied to my email of 26th November 2007 specifically and Councillor Rogers' view on the matter which makes interesting reading.

 

I trust that you, and the colleagues with whom you have consulted, will ensure that the conduct of the next meeting does not provide grounds for the Council to be challenged in Court or through the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

 

2. Right to Make a Statement to the Planning Committee

 

Councillor Harrison was permitted by the Chairman to speak at the last meeting in respect of both applications for a period in excess of ten minutes. I trust that it will be ensured that he is restricted to the agreed maximum of three minutes at the next meeting.

 

3. Councillors’ Appearance

 

I note that my comments regarding the appearance of Councillors attending the meeting will be raised with them. I trust that you will protect the Council's image and the perception created for the public by ensuring that no Councillor wears an Oldham Roughyeds (or Oldham Athletic shirt) at the next meeting, in view of the need for each Councillor to be seen to consider the matter as a neutral.

 

4. Conduct of the Meeting

 

I appreciate the problems with using name cards in a crowded Council Chamber. The obvious solution to the problem of identifying Councillors, which I and the public in general experienced at the last meeting, is for the Chairman to refer to the Councillors by their surname. I trust that this simple solution will be effected at the next meeting.

 

 

I note that the planning application for the redevelopment of Boundary Park will be resubmitted to the Planning Committee on 11 December following the provision of amended plans involving changes to scale and mass of the proposed development. There will also be an opportunity to clarify issues of concern raised around the traffic impact. This is the opportunity for the many wrongs of the last meeting to be corrected and I look forward to that.

 

Yours sincerely,