| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Front page article re. area planning committees | |
| Posted by: | Elizabeth Ross | |
| Date/Time: | 06/06/11 12:27:00 |
| Sam, it is useful to hear what you have just said as the Area Committee did need to be reformed/refined. However, I think it is vital that we have in place some checks and balances so that the Planning Dept. do not ride rough shod over the wishes of a community. Having seen the SDC in action on several occasions, I have little faith in it. To begin with the documentation supplied by the Planning Dept. to the SDC members was incredibly biased by omission and it left those of us complaining to send proper documents to each Councillor. Of those who received the additional papers, I would say that only 2 had read the papers and understood our complaint. 2 of the members were asleep for most of the time we were being heard and then voted against us. The planning person who signed the original documentation - the subject of complaint - was the same person who advised the SDC - I would have said this was a conflict of interest. And I could go on but we came away very unhappy that the issues had not been dealt with fairly, nor had we been given a proper opportunity to express our complaints - a representative was given 5 minutes which was wholly inadequate and when misleading information was given to the Committee we were not permitted to have it corrected. We have ended up in Court at great expense feeling very peeved at the way 'our' Council has treated us. The Courts are not where we should be, there must be some way this sort of problem can be heard within the community fairly and equably to all. |