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.
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.
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?
We're not sure that it is the end of the game yet and are currently exploring any other avenues there might be.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWe must not be overly surprised at this,democracy at all levels is long dead as we are all aware and with the collusion of planners and the dinosaurs of councillors eventually the developer would have his way.
I am led to believe that all such planning committees are a charade and the deal is long done by the time that the committee meets.
Too many pigs have their snouts firmly in the trough and no doubt the developer has been working hard with his contacts since the last rejection.
The most pertinent point that you make is that almost exactly the opposite decision was made by this outfit last time around and then with very little change by the developer,suddenly the reject decision becomes an accept one.
I think that we were made aware some months ago that Harp was in favour of the development and "warned" us that compromise would eventually be required,no doubt he has been pursuing this agenda behind the scenes for this about turn decision to occur.
The lesson is never believe anything that this council tells us and accept that councillors are there to represent only themselves,anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.
Let us make sure at the ballot box that Harp gets dumped from the Fulford seat,and as you say well done to Mr.Roycroft for supporting the cause rather than following Harp.
It was all stitched up long before it got to committee.
Aptly put. I have to say that, having had no previous dealings with local councils/ authorities, this whole thing has been a heck of a learning experience. The amount of effort involved in getting local politicians interested has been huge and "people power" has played a large part in this. That said, the support that some of them have given has been nothing short of magnificent. Ian Parry has been a brick and I don't think we would have got as far as we did without his backing. Likewise, the trojan efforts of Cllr Joy Bennett and the aforementioned Peter Roycroft who has been a star. Not forgetting, of course, Bill Cash who has continually supported our efforts as far as he has been able.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, an early learning experience was the fact that the Planning Dept. don't actually work in favour of residents. According to case officer Alan Lynch, their role is to make sure the application goes through. So who is working for us? Basically, we are!
Another learning point concerns the national planning policy statements (PPS)which are full of noble sentiments such as the need to consult and involve the local community in planning decisions. The reality of this is that some of us get a letter, are invited to object and then get to speak for three minutes but not participate in the "debate". And that's it. Councillors can then say whatever they like however inaccurate, misleading or just plain wrong without so much as a by your leave.
Anyway, that's enough moaning for one day. I'm not ready to give up just yet and am hoping there might be one more card to play ....
Check out the Localism Bill progressing through Parliament as part of the Tory Big Society agenda,particularly on its shift to local community decision making via Parish Council.It would infer a 2011 Spring enactment.
ReplyDeleteOn the presumption that Davis isn`t stupid enough to demolish and build imminently as he has zero chance of selling to recoup his money perhaps a community led challenge under the new Act in the springtime may be feasible.Worth a google and possibly a chat with Mr.Cash at one of his helpful Stone surgeries?
We've been keeping an eye on the Communities Bill for some time now. Had it come earlier, it might well have helped us. It did occur to me that it could be this very piece of legislation that caused the Planning Committee to change its stance in such an alarming manner. As I understand it, local politicians will have to get substantially involved in any community initiatives arising from the new bill. Our councillors (or I should say one of them in particular) might have found the prospect of that so daunting that they decided to get rid of the pub once and for all.
ReplyDeleteI contacted Bill Cash immediately after the result was known. As and when anything comes of it, you'll be the first to know.
I'm appalled at the turnaround of the planning commitee. I have never seen such blatant disregard of peoples views. As a democratic socialist in principle, I am so disgusted by this complete overuling of the residents views and very disheartned that councils and commitees are working in this way when they are supposed to be representing us. Lets hope we can do something about it in the elections in May 2011. Please remember who worked for you and against you and use your vote to get rid of the ones who obviously think they are there to do what they want and not to help us.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree with you more. Let's use the ballot box to let them know what we think of their performance.
ReplyDelete