Forum Topic

Are our Area Committees under threat?

I heard a disturbing rumour yesterday that the new Labour administration in Hounslow is considering abolishing the five Area Committees, which give a degree of decision-making power to local councillors on a regional basis.Before I am flamed I want to say that this is nothing but an unconfirmed rumour, albeit from an informed source, and I freely acknowledge that there may be no truth in it whatsoever.  This being the case I am sure somebody from the administration will be happy to post on here to reassure us.Fwiw under the previous administration there was a body of opinion within the Conservative Group that wished to do away with the Area Committees (this is not a secret, those who held this view were quite open about it).  Whether pro-AC Tories or anti-AC Tories were a majority within their own party I cannot say, but the presence of the ICG within the coalition made the idea a non-starter in any event.I am sure that many other forum users as well as myself would appreciate some wisdom on this.

Phil Andrews ● 5695d42 Comments

Adam - the case I referred to (in which SDC members rejected officer advice that an extension should be allowed to stand) was after 2006, and was therefore subsequent to you leaving your post as Head of Planning Enforcement at LBH.Jon - You omit to mention that the Ombudsman did not call for the HCAC to lose any of its powers but merely for some of its members to be given additional training. And no I'm not suggesting a "huge conspiracy" by all SDC members: the Tory and ICG members voted as a block on this matter, and were opposed by Labour.

Robin Taylor ● 5689d

It is true to say that some attractive period houses in Osterley in Jersey Road and Wood Lane have been unnecessarily demolished to the moderate detriment of the area.

Ian Speed ● 5689d

I had not intended to respond to this thread. However, having been named in several postings, I feel that the following response is appropriate:-1) I did say the decision to suspend the WHOLE COMMITTEE in Heston in Cranford was fascist. It was an act of collective punishment affecting all 12 members of the committee. The case Adam refers to was in St Paul's Close, and the report produced by the Ombudsman would have enabled the Council to identify the individual members responsible for the decision in question. These were a minority of the Area Committee at the time of suspension, yet members who were elected AFTER the decision, members absent from the meeting in question, and those who voted against, were all subjected to the collective punishment.If the majority on the Council had been interested in a JUST decision they would have suspended the members responsible from taking part in further enforcement decisions. However, their motive was clearly to score political points against their Labour opponents, and fairness or justice did not enter the debate.That is why I maintain it was fascist.2) In relation to the initial posting by Phil Andrews, I believe that Area Committees are very desirable and I was closely involved in the decision to introduce them. Today, however, the Council is facing huge cuts in its budget. Many frontline services will be at risk. Area Committeess come with a cost, including large allowances to the Chair and Vice-Chair that I have always considered to be unjustified.Much of the work carried out by area committees could be done in a less formal way that at present. This would mean less transparency. However, the critical issue members will have to address is where they will cut to enable the committees to be maintained.I am pleased that I don't have to address these budget problems the present council is facing.

John Connelly ● 5689d

Robin, I believe your recollection is wrong as during my time as Head of Planning Enforcement at LBH (Oct 01 to August 06) there was never a time when SDC made such a decision - enforcement decisions were never made at SDC apart from when HCAC had their enforcement decision making powers 'suspended'.But I would actually agree with you that it wasn't a regular occurrence for HCAC Members to go against Officer recommendation, and there were times I/my team recommended to other Area Committees that no action be taken but Members resolved to take enforcement action.

Adam Beamish ● 5689d

They don't Robin: I certainly haven't.  However the independent Ombudsman evidently thought that 15% of cases and the circumstances of those cases merited censuring the Council.SDC was composed by Members of every hue: Indies, Tories, Libs and Labs: Are you suggesting a huge conspiracy by them all?

Jon Hardy ● 5689d

Since when did committee members have to agree with every single recommendation made by officers?Further more, I seem to recall at least one case (subsequent to the centralising of the HCAC's powers) in which the SDC went AGAINST an officer's recommendation to allow a Heston resident's extension to stand: consequently, he had to knock it down.Not long ago on this forum, one ICG benefactor accused the Indian community of being responsible for the "architectural rape" of Osterley. It's that type of nonsense that raises suspicions about the SDC's true motives.

Robin Taylor ● 5689d

Thankyou for your post Adam: I appreciate your first hand knowledge. However, what you are probably unaware of was the amount of business that came through SDC subsequently where we had to make the decision to enforce against unlawful extensions etc in the Heston and Cranford area.  But thankyou for confirming the core issue that that this was the result of the Ombudsman's judgement. And that this came about as a result of 15% of enforcement decisions not being taken.

Jon Hardy ● 5689d

Thanks Jon - this confirms that the subject was the one I presumed it was.  Perhaps I should add that I know the circumstances very well as (1) I presented the recommendation to enforce to the committee meeting, and (2) I was involved in the resulting Ombudsman investigation (a copy of whose report I have somewhere at home).Just a few points which I don't think are completely accurate in your post - as I recall it I think the statistics (which I produced) show that there had been a total of 5 decisions made by HCAC not to enforce against Officer recommendation over a considerable (3 - 4 years) period of time (during which time probably in excess of 30 decisions were made in support of the Officer recommendation).  And, again based upon my immediate recollection, I don't believe a single decision not to enforce related to a dwellinghouse in a back garden, but were in respect of things like extensions and porches.I'm surprised however that this is still being talked about given the actual decision which sparked this all off was made at a committee meeting sometime in early/mid 2006 !.

Adam Beamish ● 5689d

I know I'm going to regret responding to your posting but here goes.'Well what a load of bo**ocks'    Hardly.  I believe everything stated is verifiable if you did but read the minutes of the meetings.'And it just proves that the ICG are not in the least bit interested in "localism" or "community".'  I'm no longer a member of the ICG Robin - so this proves nothing.'You try to justify the centralisation of powers by issuing smears about committee members accepting "back-handers" and yet provide no evidence'  No I didn't: I was merely trying to explain why others had mentioned corruption: if you read my posting Robin I said that there was no evidence for this and stated that the reason for SDC taking on HCAC's planning duties was because HCAC said  their errors were because of lack of training.'As Manria said earlier, John Connolly had three decades' experience as a councillor - you had only four years (during which time you paid yourself very generous sums of public money)'      Actually Robin I did not: if anything I subsidised my time as a Councillor to the tune of £12K/year by living off my saving so I could work full-time as a councillor.  I freely admit that JC is a much more experienced councillor than I: perhaps that is why his erstwhile colleagues dumped him.'And I like the bit about "its demographic". By supporting the centralisation, the ICG was playing to the bigots in the gallery (e.g. AMJA & the rest of the HRG)'      Well for a start I don't know who this bunch of initials are so I can't see how I was supposed to play to them. The issue was a matter of law: Hounslow was castigated by the Ombudsman for not enforcing against the breaches of planning law; do you think the Ombudsman was a racist bigot Robin?

Jon Hardy ● 5689d

Well what a load of bo**ocks.And it just proves that the ICG are not in the least bit interested in "localism" or "community".You try to justify the centralisation of powers by issuing smears about committee members accepting "back-handers" and yet provide no evidence.As Manria said earlier, John Connolly had three decades' experience as a councillor - you had only four years (during which time you paid yourself very generous sums of public money). And boy, does the difference show.John's opposition to the centralising policies of the Tories and ICG was that EVERY member of the committee - including the experienced and knowledgeable ones - had their powers stripped from them because of the alleged shortcomings of others.And I like the bit about "its demographic". By supporting the centralisation, the ICG was playing to the bigots in the gallery (e.g. AMJA & the rest of the HRG).Shameful. No wonder the electorate gave you your marching orders.

Robin Taylor ● 5689d

As I recall(but you can check the minutes of the Borough Council Meeting at the time) the matter was quite serious: Hounslow was hauled over the the coals by the independent Ombudsman for sitting on its hands in not enforcing a severe planning breach.  Local residents appealed to the Ombudsman and he ruled that the Area Committee in H&C had been negligent in its duties.The matter extended beyond an individual case - it emerged that HCAC had routinely not enforced against illegal extensions, conversions even complete residences built in back gardens even though it was in the public interest to do so.  It emerged that there was an attitude that H&C was treated as a 'special case' because of its demographic even though this was quite illegal.Questions were raised as to what was behind this: suggestions were made that back-handers were being made though since there was no evidence for this it was accepted that Members on that Committee required extra training to ensure they fully understood the principles of planning law on the issues that they would have to decide: it had been those Members' defence  that they had not fully understood these and that was why they had been in error. (I have to say I found the Members' training I received in the first week as a councillor excellent and I was in little danger of accidentally falling foul of the law.)While this training was going on - and it took some Members of HCAC a long time to attend the sessions that were set up - planning decisions were for this Area were taken by Sustainable Development Committee (SDC) where there is cross-borough representation - so hardly undemocratic.  Cllr Connelly was guilty of extreme hyperbole in his description of this exercise especially since planning authority was restored to HCAC as soon as Members completed their (re)training. (not something you see many facist regimes do, John) All of this is a matter of record and can be confirmed by looking at the Minutes of the Borough Council meetings 2006-2007.It is true that some Members did not like this - some sitting on SDC made this clear by refusing to vote on HCAC planning business that came our way. I found this curious as they were complaining that suspending HCAC's powers was 'nit democratic' but they refused to use their position to ensure that democracy was served.

Jon Hardy ● 5689d

Nor mine, which was "Are our Area Committees under threat?" and which is, after all, the theme of this thread.There are 35 councillors sitting on the ruling Group.  Would not one of them care to reassure us that this is nowt but an empty rumour?

Phil Andrews ● 5692d

No-one has actually answered my question yet about what 'event' at HCAC is being referred to...

Adam Beamish ● 5692d

Ian,Manria has quite a track record when it comes to not answering questiions.Nob-end quite often answers for him/her.

Keith Iddon ● 5693d

"dictators dictate, they don't answer points"Well you should know.Call any of your employees "scum" today, did you?

Robin Taylor ● 5693d

"perhaps Manria could answer my point about the Planning Inspectorate?"Errr - dictators dictate, they don't answer points

Steve Taylor ● 5693d

Mmmm... pro-Iraq War, a flag-waving monarchist - where does one have to stand to be on the right then?  Slaughter of the firstborn?

Phil Andrews ● 5693d

No - left actually.

Vanessa Smith ● 5693d

Right.

Phil Andrews ● 5693d

I have no 'official party line'.

Vanessa Smith ● 5693d

Because I seem to recall you having some fairly robust views on this subject which are at odds with the Official Party Line, and I was interested to see whether you had retained the independence of mind to share them with us.  It's not like you are backwards at coming forwards when you feel the Official Party Line needs to be defended, after all.

Phil Andrews ● 5694d

Ian,You specifically raised H&CAC so I'd presumed you knew.I am of course no longer part of LBH so I don't know if something has occurred recently at H&CAC or whether we are still (over 4 years later) talking about one particular enforcement decision that Area Committee made back in mid 2006 ?.

Adam Beamish ● 5694d

Why do you wonder?

Vanessa Smith ● 5694d

Oh yes, and perhaps Manria could answer my point about the Planning Inspectorate?

Ian Speed ● 5694d

Can anyone better informed than me say exactly what happened wrf to HCAC and the centralisation?

Ian Speed ● 5694d

But that's part of my point, don't Area Committee at least ensure that the Councillors who sit on them are more 'in tune' with their constituents ?.  I recall the times one night I'd be at Chiswick Area Committee trying to convince Members that some trivial (in my professional opinion) breach of planning control didn't justify enforcement action, the next I'd be say at Heston & Cranford or Hounslow trying to convince Members that they really should enforce against a 10 metre deep extension to a terraced house (I exaggerate, but you get the point).  Technically planning policies etc. are the same throughout the Borough so should be applied equally, but I am not wholly convinced that Area Committees do so (which isn't meant as a criticism).What, as I frequently state on here, worries me the most is when Officers are 'scared' to tell Councillors that something Councillors want cannot be done because the legislation doesn't enable it to be done.  This morning I have spent considerable time on the phone to one London Council who are trying to make a client of mine enter into a completely unreasonable and indeed unlawful planning agreement, and everytime I point out why it isn't reasonable/lawful, all the Officer says is "but that's what the Members would like to see".  That attitude irritates the hell out of me, Officers aren't paid to 'obey' Members, so I get extremely annoyed when an Officer almost tries to bully my client into agreeing to something they know they have no legal right to ask for just because the Officer hasn't got the balls to tell Councillors that they can't have what they want.  And I say that remembering how I always used to tell Members how it was and never once remember Members taking offence at being told what could and couldn't be done...Anyhow I agree with Ken's point that if the Area Committees were abolished I'd think it was primarily a cost cutting exercise (less meetings, less committee clerks needed etc) rather than any kind of political point.

Adam Beamish ● 5694d

Rather than bring pre formed party prejudices to this 'discussion' I will state that I have no views on this rumoured decision. I assume by abolishing these 'quangoes' money will be saved? Will there be any other benefit?

Ken Collins ● 5694d

"Councillor" Sue Sampson will respond at the weekend when she has time to do so and after she has asked someone what the Area Committee is!!

Paul Fisher ● 5694d

Does Vanessa have a view on this I wonder?

Phil Andrews ● 5694d

Oh you are so witty Robin especially when you are rattled

Paul Fisher ● 5694d

Great to see the ICG are still following the agenda of Andy Atkinscum.

Robin Taylor ● 5694d

"all of them had their powers stripped away"And so they should have as it was a scandal how they behaved Robin/Parvez/Manria

Paul Fisher ● 5694d

'I don't care what he said'no of course you don't, Mr Speed,  because John had 28 years experience as a councillor and all you have is your prejudices.  Who on the committee was corrupt because all of them had their powers stripped away?

Manria Kaur ● 5694d

Interested by your comments Ian - as we appear to quite often I disagree with them !.No disrespect to Councillors, but nothing terrifies me more on a professional level than the idea of elected members determining planning appeals.  The concept was mooted a couple or so years back and fortunately after consultation (and considerable opposition from the professionals, Royal Town Planning Institute etc) the then government shelved any plans to proceed.  As for 'corruption', I would be very surprised if that is the basis behind any move to do away with Area Committees.  As I well know Heston & Cranford Area Committee had its enforcement decision making powers suspended for a year after one 'questionable' decision, but to follow that logic through why not do away with planning committees altogether and delegate all planning decisions to Officers ?.For what its worth, and having sat for 10 years in the public sdctor, I am not convinced there's any 'corruption'.  I have alot of sympathy, if that's the right word, for Members, they are placed in this position where on the one hand they are elected by their constitutents to represent their constitutents, yet on the other also expected to make decisions on matters only having regard to national policies, legislation etc, regardless of how those policies/legislation might actually bring 'bad things' for the constituents.  And I think it's that awkward position which leads to allegations of 'corruption' (because it's easy to suggest) rather than having any actual factual basis in reality (although of course there are exceptions).  People have often said to me how I must have got extremely frustrated with the Members who sat on Heston & Cranford Area Committee (H&CAC), which is completely untrue, attending Area Committees was probably the 'highlight' of my role within the public sector as you always had to be prepared, never quite knew what was coming next, and as time went by and I become more appreciative of the awkward position Members sometimes found themselves in - I have genuine affection and respect for every Councillor who sat on H&CAC during my time at LBH.But at the same time it will be my worst nightmare if Elected Members ever get an increased say in planning matters, and for the same reasons why I am 'terrified' by this 'localism' nonsense the Coalition Government waffle on about.

Adam Beamish ● 5694d

Do they have Area Committees in the Borough you live in Robin?

Paul Fisher ● 5694d

No actually

Ian Speed ● 5694d

Ian,Are you and David Pavett still co-opted members of IBAC?

Robin Taylor ● 5695d

I don't care what he said , corruption was the reason. In any case, that would point to the concept of abolishing the Planning Inspectorate and letting council committee decisions stand permanently, rather than allowing appeals to unelected centralised bureaucrats. How do you feel about that Manria?

Ian Speed ● 5695d

Independent councillor John Connolly said the centralisation was 'characteristic of fascist regimes'

Manria Kaur ● 5695d

This centralisation was due to perceived corruption.

Ian Speed ● 5695d

Robin, any truth in whya Paul say's?

Neil Chippendale ● 5695d

"the presence of the ICG within the coalition made the idea a non-starter in any event."You've got a short memory haven't you?You publicly - and enthusiastically - spoke out in favour of the centralisation of powers that had previously been given to the Heston & Cranford Area Committee.

Robin Taylor ● 5695d