Forum Topic

Further erosion of democracy in Hounslow

Good luck to any resident wHo wishes to object to a planning application as the Labour Administration have now reduced the time allowed to speak at the committee meeting to just two minutes!Just a coincidence I`m sure that many large controversial planning applications are due to be heard shortly which Labour are determined to shoe in before the elections

Paul Fisher ● 4294d15 Comments

'have gotTEN themselves'?Pardon me if you are American, but this is not proper English usage.

Anne England ● 4291d

:-}

Keith Iddon ● 4291d

"I do hope you are not one of those who believes their political leaders descend to a lower level of being when they deign to engage with the hoi polloi"Quite the opposite. It disappoints me that we don't hear more of them and, whilst as you may have spotted I will never be a Tory, I applaud John Todd and Sam Hearn who often engage on CW4.Always easy to take a cheap shot at them and I think that's what you did. FYI it's not so hard to do a facsimile of a smiley :-) though I'd love to learn how you did italics ;-)

Guy Lambert ● 4291d

"Ruth took the trouble to come on here to explain the thinking"Guy, I do hope you are not one of those who believes their political leaders descend to a lower level of being when they deign to engage with the hoi polloi. It would be a shame if you were, I always had you down as one of the good guys.There was no attempt at point scoring on my part, had the software been available on this forum my comments would have been accompanied by an appropriate smiley.  It is always to be regretted when politicians take themselves and their senior personages so seriously that they can neither recognise nor appreciate humour.  There but for the grace of God.

Phil Andrews ● 4291d

I must say the training I had was far more detailed and was up-dated throughout my terms, after all things change constantly. But members have to rely on the professional officers for guidance, bearing in mind that members are also in a community representative position, that's not to say officers are always right, and I can remember occasions when they really got it wrong, but they are only human. I agree that the likes of Mike Smith and Terry Welsh would not hesitate to tell you off if they thought you were out of order, I fell foul of them several times over the years, but again we were coming at things from a different perspective which they were experienced enough to understand. Both of them were also available for members to run things past them that were causing concern, and I certainly had a high regard for both. As a subject that is so emotive and never clear cut as people from opposing views think perhaps councillors should have decent and ongoing training in planning issues and legislation?

Vanessa Smith ● 4292d

Ruth took the trouble to come on here to explain the thinking - something I'd like councillors to do more often.Your post seemed to be a rational and constructive response....until the last paragraph where you descended to attempting point-scoring at a level most people give up when they reach the age of 12. Not only that, but you didn't score any points.

Guy Lambert ● 4292d

I meant voila, of course!

Phil Andrews ● 4292d

"If we brought back this, where would you make the cut in order to resource (time and money) this?"Well, as I told you once before I would look at the Area Forum meetings, which roughly equate to the old Area Monitoring meetings, and take out all the indulgent stuff which is of no tangible community benefit.  Where presentations are to be made to councillors I would discontinue the present practice of officers delivering identical presentations to five different Area Forums on different nights and bring all the councillors under the same roof to attend one presentation, given once.Current Area Forum agenda could thus be condensed into fewer meetings, and the surplus slots could be allocated to "Meet Your Councillors" sessions which would comprise direct engagement between the community and elected representatives without the need for an officer presence.As far as planning is concerned, I have no quarrel with individual household applications being determined either by the Planning Committee or by officers, subject to a right of call-in to the Area Forum by elected members.However larger issues of a strategic nature should where possible in my view be decided by local elected councillors, or at the very least they should have more input into them.  Yes training should be given, but the principle of ever increasing devolvement of powers should be one which guides our actions.My reference to the saving of 36 minutes is easily quantifiable.  Six applications equals twelve presentations (six from applicants and six from objectors), each involving a three-minute loss of time.  Viola - 36 minutes!If I were you Ruth I would take the time to undergo a crash course in simple mathematics.  After all, some MPs have gotten themselves into a whole lot of trouble over the past few years as a result of the difficulties they have in doing simple sums.

Phil Andrews ● 4292d

So what's the answer ? - it seems to be you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.Have a system whereby all applications are determined by Officers and everyone says that's undemocratic.  Have a system where all applications are determined by Councillors and aside from the obvious resulting delays people complain that most Councillors don't have any planning background and aren't adequately trained to make decisions.I agree that training often isn't sufficient but it can only go so far.  From my perspective, what I increasingly see at some Planning Committees is a reluctance by Officers to take a firm hand with Members when irrelevant points are made, almost as though they are scared.  Often I sit at committees (not talking about Hounslow in this regard) and I'm desperate to 'kick' the Legal Officer to actually engage with Members rather than just sitting there in silence and letting Members get away with absurd comments.  In my day the likes of Terry Welsh and Mike Smith wouldn't let things go, and rightly so, but, and I appreciate either current or past Councillors may see it differently, I don't think that is as common now.As for the time to speak, I'd have to concur that 2 minutes is abit tight.  For professionals like myself who are used to addressing committees it's okay, but for the public who aren't similarly experienced it can be very daunting.  However there has to be equality between both sides as otherwise that wouldn't be fair/balanced.  And it does get rather tiresome when there's six objectors speaking on the same application and each of them basically makes the same argument rather than advancing any new points.

Adam Beamish ● 4292d

As I have mentioned on previous occasions I think I had about an hours session regarding planning which was considered enough for me and other new councillors at the time to sit on a planning committee within a couple of weeks of being electedAbsolute madness and although I had some previous construction and design and build experience there is no way I and others should have been allowed to have been thrown straight in at the deep end deciding such importent matters in residents lives that could have an impact for years

Paul Fisher ● 4293d

It used to be the case that councillors sitting on the planning committee HAD to have the appropriate training before doing so. However, having said that - when did some individuals ever take any notice of what is right and proper? You can lead a horse to water etc. etc.

Vanessa Smith ● 4293d

If householders or their councilors want theirs or their neighbour's planning application determined by councillors rather than officers, they are entitled to full professional advice being available at the meeting, and the decision made by Councillors trained in the semi-judicial role of planning decision-making.And has Darshan Grewal been so trained?

Chris Broadbent ● 4293d

As Chair of Planning Committee, this is a rational one-off arrangement to allow all applicants and objectors a fair opportunity to inform the committee members of their case, whilst ensuring people can get home before midnight.  This is due to the unusual balance of the agenda for this week's meeting.  All bar one of the items are householder applications, and we have had requests to speak by applicants and objectors on all of them. It would not be fair for me to single out the usual 3 items for speakers.  So THIS TIME, I have said that I will allow speakers on any application where there has been a request, that the time for each to speak is 2 minutes, and that each speaker be invited to provide a written summary of their case (max 2 pages)- which many do anyway but I wanted to set this out explicitly.  Of course questions will be allowed from Councillors to speakers as usual which adds to the opportunity to provide information and increases the time involved (36 minutes - I don't thinks so . . .).  And finally, as always, I will ask officer to only speak if they have anything to add to their written report, and if they do, to keep it very brief. Of course I recognise that 2 minutes is tight, and I will not cut people off mid sentence. I know that Councillors will read, listen, and should they have outstanding questions of speakers they will be able to ask them. I believe my record of chairing planning committee has been one of fairness to all parties, particularly residents not experienced in speaking at Council meetings.  So I'm sorry Paul and Phil, you cannot get away with accusing me of restricting public input - in fact there will be more public involvement at this week's meeting than is usually the case.  For all 5 applications;  2-pages summaries, 2 minutes plus opportunity to reply to questions, summarised case in the agenda papers and supplementary sheets. Plus for those who take up the opportunity: direct emails and/or phone calls to Councillors and invitations to visit the application and/or objector's premises.  I would say that provides very significant input from the public for householder applications, and would be happy to compare our process to that of other borough's planning committees. Oh and by the way, I have not refused any "called-in" application to come to full Planning Committee since I have been the Chair.Oh and while I'm on - Phil which boroughs have planning decisions made at an area level?  If we brought back this, where would you make the cut in order to resource (time and money) this?  If householders or their councilors want theirs or their neighbour's planning application determined by councillors rather than officers, they are entitled to full professional advice being available at the meeting, and the decision made by Councillors trained in the semi-judicial role of planning decision-making.

Cllr Ruth Cadbury ● 4293d

Is that because too many of the councillors were wanting to be collecting their pay-off-brown envelopes from said developers and didn't want to be distracted from pocketing their ill-gotten gains by questions from the public about said developments?So, tell me, which councillors actually attended this meeting?

Xanthe West ● 4293d

I am advised that this is apparently to be a one-off, as six applications have speakers on that evening.This asks rather more questions than it answers.1. The time saving involved by curtailing the only opportunity members of the public have to influence planning decisions can be no more than 36 minutes.  The Chair - Councillor Ruth Cadbury - had the opportunity to ask officers at the meeting to be succinct and fellow members to keep it brief and relevant, but instead her first thought was to find the time saving by restricting public input.  This is entirely consistent with the controlling mindset of the Labour Group in Hounslow and its general anti-community instincts.2. If Planning Committee agendas are so full these days that it needs to cut short adequate representations from the public then what does this tell us about the wisdom of the decision to shut down the area committees?Bit by bit Labour in Hounslow is actively dismantling every vestige of free community expression.

Phil Andrews ● 4293d