| Topic: | Check and double check what you are told by WBC Planning | |
| Posted by: | Nicholas Evans | |
| Date/Time: | 06/06/12 12:32:00 |
| Make sure what you are told by those working in planning (generic term) is not misleading. On the 11th of May I enquired what the procedures were regarding attendance at a PAC so that I could put my own point of view against a particular application (in this case the Putney Hospital application, now found to be invalid). I was told that I could only make representations in writing, and that delegations were not allowed. I asked to see the relevant procedures in writing. I was then told a Resolution had been passed in 1976. I asked to see it. I was told that the admin person (generic term) replying did not have a copy, but that I could see it in the Heritage Department at Battersea Library. So I went to check. The Librarians were superb: helpful, informed and prompt. I found the relevant minute and resolution. I have a copy. The following is taken directly from the papers held in Battersea Library: 1) The minute of the 2nd of June 1976 meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee concerning deputations reads: The Chairman then suggested that the sub-committee should adopt guidelines on the matter of deputations and that it should in general resist them on the grounds that there were already adequate statutory consultation procedures and opportunities for applicants and members of the public to express opinions in writing for the Director of Planning to bring to the attention of the sub-committee in his reports. In addition members expressed the view that the sub-comnmittee should take steps to avoid setting a precedent whereby proceedings could be impeded to an unacceptable extent by applicants and/or objectors appearing, as a matter of course, to speak in support of, or against a particular application. It was then resolved: (a) That the Sub-Committee will not, except in exceptional circumstances, receive deputations on matters relating to specific applications; and (b) That the Chairman be empowered, in consultation with the Leader of the Minority Party on the Sub-Committee and the officers, to examine each application for a deputation for the purposes of carrying out the policy outlined in (a) above. So at that time the Committee - who were being bombarded with contentious developments - tried to avoid talking with real people. But as you will see above, delegations could be seen in "exceptional circumstances". In my view all current applications can be regarded as exceptional for a very good reason. The WBC Planning website is dysfunctional. It renders all online objections in an unreadable unformatted manner. It does not provide clear "signposting" of the entries, and takes at times 10 days to post letters or emails. Therefore the written methods of making objections or comments do not work. Therefore Delegations are the only way a group of residents can put forward a clear contrary point of view to the PAC. Having found the missing Resolution I thought I'd better look at the Constitution of WBC and in Section 4 found that there are procedures more recent than 1976 rules regarding the way Committees function. Delegations or their representatives can certainly attend meetings and procedures are laid down on how this should be handled. I wonder how many others have been given misleading information about delegations? I've asked, and expect a reply. Nick |