The Planning Committee has spoken and although the result is not to our liking, we are more particularly concerned with the way the whole thing has been managed.
We spoke for 3 minutes quoting extensively from national planning guidance (PPS) indicating how the application did not comply. These points were completely ignored by the Committee members who appeared to have made up their minds in advance.
Worse, we had been instructed to limit our points to planning issues only and not mention anything to do with the view that the owners had run the business down deliberately to develop the site. And yet the first councillor to speak expressed sympathy with the owners because residents had not used the pub suggesting that we had brought the situation upon ourselves.
He did not explain how we might have done that given that the pub was often closed after the applicants took over.
Disappointingly one of our own Borough Councillors, Andrew Harp, spoke in favour of the application. As he was a member of the planning committee we had not been allowed to discuss any aspect of the application with him. Worryingly, he had let it be known when the consultation exercise started that he thought the application would go through this time. One can only wonder what his reasons were and why he was able to express such a view when the consultation exercise had barely started.
Several councillors also took the view that little else can be done with the site and that none of the letters of objection had come up with an alternative. This is untrue but more to the point, no one has asked the residents what they want. A meeting was suggested between residents and applicants (12 months ago) but this was declined by the owners.
Moreover, the Planning Dept. instructions are quite clear about the nature of the consultation exercise: it is for residents to make objections based on planning issues. To the best of our knowledge, there is no official mechanism for making counter proposals. Residents have been making alternative suggestions on their own initiative for some time including via the local press and directly to local councillors.
The most appalling aspect must be the fact that the committee did a complete turn around from its position in May when the vast majority were against the proposal to a situation where the vast majority were in favour of essentially the same application. How does that happen? How do you go from a position where you are totally against something to one where you are totally in favour?
In case you are interested, the one member who voted against the application was our own Peter Roycroft. Well done Councillor!
We're not sure that it is the end of the game yet and are currently exploring any other avenues there might be.