| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Front page article re. area planning committees | |
| Posted by: | Sam Hearn Cllr | |
| Date/Time: | 06/06/11 12:04:00 |
| I think that many of the comments on this thread are based on an idealised view of what the Local Area Planning Committees were actually were responsible for and carefully ignore the new responsibilities that the Area Monitoring Committees will now take on. The old Area Planning Committees did not make decisions on major planning decisions e.g Mogden, St Margaret's House and Kew Bridge. These matters came to the Area Committees so that they could be discussed by local councillors (and other representatives of local residents)and so that comments and suggestions could then be collated and passed to the SDC. The Area Monitoring Committee will now take on this "sounding board" function of the old area planning Committees. So in practice there is no loss to local accountability on major planning issues - or am I missing something crucial here? The right of a councillor to call a decision in remains - although, as in the past, the reason for doing this must be based on sound planning reasons. The Conservative Group decided on a free vote for this decision. However so far as I am aware no Councillor thought that the old Area Planning Committees should continue without some significant reforms. What I am excited about is that I am now free to campaign for or against any planning application and am not gagged by the quasi-legal restrictions placed on members of the Area Planning Committee. I am interested in Phil Andrews comments. He has, I know, thought deeply about these matters. From memory he was one of the "progressives" in favour of reforming the old area planning committees system to make them more effective and efficient. Perhaps he would like to comment on this? What sysem is he advocating - surely not a return to the old system? At what level is localism most effective? He might like to comment on the "elephant in the room" issue of the failure of planning committees in some parts of the Borough (not Chiswick) who failed to exercise their planning enforcement responsibilities properly. I have copied below an extract from the report that went to the Borough Council in May that I included in my earlier posting. The statistics speak for themselves. Is anyone seriously arguing that there was not a colossal waste of councillor and officer time inherent in the old system? See above for reference: "Evidence suggests that these changes would not have any material effect on the outcome of planning applications. During the period from January 2007 and June 2010 approximately 90% of all planning decisions were determined under delegated powers. In this period the remaining 10% (596 applications) were considered by the Area Planning Committees, and of these 543 (91%) were determined in line with officer recommendation. Of these 596 applications, 564 were at committee because they had been the subject of at least one objection; 542 (96%) of these were determined in line with officer recommendation." |