In my experience Raymond there is always a degree of pressure from Councillors on Officers, and certainly in my time at Hounslow I was often amused at how one day I might have a Chiswick Councillor venting about my Team being unwilling to enforce against what we considered to be a minor breach of the regulations that caused no harm, and then the next I'd have a Central Hounslow Councillor asking if a 10 metre deep unauthorised extension was a big deal.Did I ever feel pressured or coerced by a Member into a recommendation I didn't agree with ? - no. Could a less experienced or younger officer have felt pressured ? - yes. But to me that's part of the job, I joined LBH having previously worked for 2 authorities where enforcement recommendations were rarely questioned or challenged, and I felt that I 'grew up' so much during my 5 years at Hounslow because within that environment it was essential that you robustly covered everything.Of course when I was at Hounslow I was aware that certain Members were excessively swayed by non-planning related considerations, and as I've said many times everytime any of us had a conversation with a Councillor that dialogue was recorded on a blue sheet - there may still be folders with notes from me stating things like "Councillor X asked if I could 'help' this person as they are a financial contributor to his political party."As Officers we recorded it but it didn't influence our professional responsibilities. A minority of Councillors make some absurd decisions on enforcement matters at my time in Hounslow, and quite rightly that came back to bite them when an unhappy resident went to the Ombudsman. And, certainly at that time, it wasn't that Officers ignored such conduct at committees, many times I saw Terry Welsh or Mike Smith robustly point out to those Members that they were treading on dangerous territory.As I've also said previously, I left local government under something of a cloud after a mere 9 weeks at another London authority, having been suspended for "failure to carry out a reasonable management instruction". In that particular case I was told (not asked) to do something relating to a matter which was now lawful, and which on 2 recent occasions colleagues had tried to engage with the owners to do something voluntarily to minimise the harm caused by that lawful development. I expressed the view that as we'd already been rebuffed twice, as the matter was actually lawful and therefore we had no right to do anything, and as we had a backlog of 'live' investigations where we could do something, wasn't it an inappropriate use of limited resources. The curt response I got was that it was not for me to question anything, and I would do as I was told. Now that's a red rag to a bull to me, so I refused and got suspended having failed my probationary period solely because I wouldn't do what I'd been told to do. Quite why I wasn't just let go I don't know, but we went through the whole farce of a hearing, and at the end of that hearing, and without any suggestion from myself, I was told that I wasn't getting my job back, but also given a cheque equating to 3 months salary.That whole experience wasn't 'dodgy' as such, but it made me realise that there are Officers in high positions who will run roughshod over their staff no matter what. And I wouldn't return to the public sector for any amount of money after that experience - fortunately for me it proved to be the best career move I ever made, even if it was never my intention, as I was called in for a interview by a major housing developer because they liked the fact I didn't just blindly follow instructions. But there were other colleagues I worked with both at that authority and elsewhere, one in particular whom I really think could have gone far in the planning world, but they stayed at that authority for several years after the controversy of my departure and their career basically went nowhere because they settled for an 'easy life' (sorry if that person is reading and doesn't agree).Finally, going back to this particular issue, this really isn't a shenanigan or doing favours, it is a finely balanced case as to whether or not the proposed extension causes any material harm, and much as I have alot of time for all the hard work Cllr. Todd does and his commitment to his constituents, I really think in this case there isn't anything more than a finely balanced decision which didn't go the way he felt it should have.
Adam Beamish ● 1852d