|
|
 |
| |
Right to be concerned over planning officials
• IN the letters page last week there were many correspondents who took issue with the view that “elected councillors should not question advice provided by Town hall officers” (Stop this anarchy at the heart of planning, January 11).
They are right to be concerned. Anyone who has attended a development control committee hearing where the councillors voted against an officer recommendation will have probably heard threats of financial penalties against the councillors if any subsequent appeal goes against the council.
Perhaps if the officers wish to have their advice followed they should be willing to suffer financial penalties if it turns out to be wrong. Until then they need to allow the councillors who are elected by the people who pay the bills to question their advice.
In late 2004 there was an application for a new A3 restaurant in an area of Covent Garden which is heavily residential.
It appeared to be against four parts of Camden’s own planning policies but, despite this, was recommended for approval by the officers. The committee discussed it at length but approved it with only one councillor voting against the officer’s recommendation. A group of residents took the view that the decision was wrong and, because it would have been such a dangerous precedent for the area, raised the funds to appeal to the High Court – the only route available under the legislation. The case was heard in July 2005 and the residents won.
The decision was overturned and costs were awarded against Camden. The matter didn’t rest there. There was a new, practically identical, application in 2005. This time the same committee voted to refuse permission despite the officers again recommending that it should be approved.
The applicant then appealed to the planning inspectorate. The officers defended the committee’s decision to refuse and several residents also attended and spoke at the appeal. The inspector supported the committee’s second decision and refused the appeal saying that there were “no compelling grounds to justify the use of the ground and basement of 25 Shelton Street as a class A3 use as an exception to the prevailing policy guidance”.
Given that there was no change in policy between the two applications the only conclusion can be that the original advice of officers was incorrect. If the members of the committee had been willing to go against this flawed recommendation at the original hearing the council would be £55,000 better off.
DAVID KANER
Mercer Street
WC2
|
 |
|
|
|
