| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The Packhorse and Talbot is to be demolished! | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 07/08/14 22:53:00 |
| I struggle with that notion. Afew months back I acted for a client in respect of a site (not in LBH) where the relevant Town Centre Manager was very much the public figurehead of a campaign against the planning application, wearing her hat as a Town Centre Manager, rather than her hat as a local resident, including addressing the relevant Planning Committee meeting (as the Town Centre Manager). It didn't seem 'right' to me for someone whose salary was 50% paid by the Council to devote a substantial part of her working life to lead a campaign against a proposal which was actually entirely in accordance with the Council's adopted planning policy documebt. I could have understood it if the relevant issues she was objecting on were subjective, but somewhat unusually in this case they were not, the proposal was completely policy complaint. So we had a Council employee publicly criticisng a Council adopted document (which had been through public consultation and independent examination prior to being adopted) during paid work time. In my personal view such conduct is wrong and unprofessional, as her role shouldn't have extended beyond finding out the background, clarifying whether the proposal was policy complaint or in any way subjectively debatable, and advising other local residents accordingly for them to take the lead. For her to be the public figurehead of opposition was entirely inappropriate in my view. It's similar to my usage of this forum, even though I'm not a Council officer I'm an employee of a company, and I'm always very quick to clarify when I'm expressing a personal view, and on some planning matters I avoid posting completely, because I am either directly or indirectly involved. I should stress no sour grapes, as despite her very extensive efforts I secured planning permission thanks to the Councillors who pointed out that the scheme was completely policy compliant and there were no planning grounds to refuse it. |