I was fortunate to be a councillor before the cabinet system was introduced. From time to time the planning committee would disagree with the recommendation of officers, quite rightly, as the committee does not exist simply to rubber-stamp the conclusion of officers. The chairman of the committee was 'a first amongst equals' and in his/her role as chairman would hold meetings with the head of the council's planning department.
Since the introduction of the cabinet system we have now in Tunbridge Wells a cabinet member who holds the planning portfolio. The relationship between the cabinet member and the planning department should be on strategic issues and not on individual applications.
The recent spat on a planning application in Pembury is disquieting. The application was to build on Green Belt and the argument was over whether or not to apply the special circumstances provisions to over-ride the presumption of no development on Green Belt land.
The planning committee decided to apply the special circumstances provisions and approve the application. It is not clear what the recommendation of the planners was but the planners clearly did their duty in advising that special circumstances did permit development on Green Belt land.
Councillor Ransley is the cabinet member who holds the planning portfolio: the same person who had the barmy idea that some off-peak trains to London from Tunbridge Wells should terminate at Cannon Street.
It is a worrying state of affairs when the holder of the planning portfolio rails against officers giving impartial advice they are under an obligation to provide and against a decision of the planning committee having taken that advice into consideration. Planning committees sit as 'quasi-judicial, bodies and have to consider each application on its merits in the context of planning law.
Councillor Ransley's claim that the 'matter of green belt must be the same for everyone' indicates a worrying ignorance of planning law. His notion that the decision in this application sets a dangerous precedent is ill-founded. Previous decisions can be distinguished on the facts to neuter the effect of them on later ones and clearly the presumption against development on Green Belt land has to be overturned by the special circumstances of a particular application.
The inference I draw is that Councillor Ransley has attacked the impartiality and professionalism of the planners: now that is worrying.
Unfortunately Councillor Ransley's ignorance of planning law is only matched by his ignorance of the laws of cricket as is demonstrated when performing his umpiring duties every saturday. It looks there's a summer of rejected planning applications, barmy umpiring decisions and off peak trains to cannon street ahead!
ReplyDelete