One of the unique things about Rochford District Council is that all 39 councillors are normally members of the Development Committee, which deals with planning applications.
Every other council seems to have a specialised committee with a smaller number of councillors on it.
So when a team of government inspectors from somewhere like the Audit Commission come to visit, the size of the committee tends to be a talking point. Basically on the lines of ‘all these councillors taking part, doesn’t it lead to bad decision making, don’t you get lots of decisions overturned by a planning inspector?
The answer is actually ‘no, we don’t lose too many appeals.’
For example in 2009 the council won about 33 appeals, lost about 15, and there was 1 ‘split decision’. So that’s a success rate of about 66%. You can download the list here. (22kb).
The list for the first quarter of 2010 (27kb) is even better – the council only lost one appeal out of six. (the one it lost was for floodlighting at Rayleigh Tennis Club).
The council’s run of success at appeals is still continuing – we’ve just been advised of three more decisions that have gone the council’s way:
247 London Road Rayleigh – This was an application to demolish a garage and build a nursing home for 50 persons. Officers recommended approval, but it was refused by councillors on the grounds of :
The Rose Garden Restaurant, Aldermans Hill, Hockley – change of use to a restaurant. The inspector, Frances Maloney, agreed with the council, and refused the appeal – on green belt grounds and effect on neighbours 12 hours per day.
Land rear of Timberwharf Cottages , Beeches Road, Battlesbridge – this was an appeal in a complicated planning enforcement case, with the appellant trying to prove he had used some buildings as a dwelling for more than 5 years before the council took enforcement action (which would given him the right to stay). However the inspector, Sara Morgan, agreed with the council.
This has a direct bearing on the undemocratic use of the cabinet system. The portfolio holders, unless they are supreme bearings, cannot be right all the time. Local Government should be run on a democratic basis with debate and consensus as the outcome. Unfortunately this will not come about in the lifetime of the present encumbents.
Here’s one for you Mike if you are interested in this tack.
If you were to ask me if the Allocations of Sites Consultation documentation had gone through a Committee or Council then I would tell you that it did not !!
Perhaps you them might ask how the actual sites put forward were chosen?
I would tell you that the only discussions with Members were actually behind closed doors and not even on a legally restricted, but properly advertised and formally summonsed Council meeting.
So who decided on the timing, content and approach? Must have just been the Cabinet Member then.
My view is that with the gathering storm of planning applications and appeals the imperative to put it forward before the Local Elections and the Public Examination of the Core Strategy was a forced issue.
So these decisions were not even democratically or ethically reached, er, am I missing something here or is this undemocratic, unethical and completely out of order?
Mike, the final decision on the content, basis and timing of the Allocaion of Sites Consultation was legally that of the Cabinet Member and Portfolio Holder to make.
That is the basis that was enacted by a Labour Government and chosen by the Conservative Council as the new political structure.
The journey that was taken to reach the decisions for the Allocation of Sites Consultation is the one that you might like to consider. Again this was something th Cabinet Member was entitled to do legally.
I have made the local press aware of all of this information but the Editor of the Echo and his team of reporters either did not understand it or did not think that this is of interest especially at the time of the local elections.
Personally I don’t find this approach to the final decision on what to consult upon satisfactory and I would be surprised if many ordinary residents would feel otherwise.
I was surprised that the meeting that was held behind closed doors was not protected by The Local Government Act because the discussion could have affected land values.
I leave the judgement on whether this is undemocratic, unethical and completely out of order to you and other readers.
If the local press read this site perhaps they might like to investigate the situation themselves.
I wish they would John, however I am not so sure they would have the bottle this close to voting. All this sounds like we have nothing good to say about the Conservatives and I wish I could say something good. I am sure there are good Tory Councillors, however they all seem to follow the party line, blindly ignoring the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent. I would say to all Tory Councillors, who can think for themselves and would like to put forward their residents views, do the right thing, resign and put themselves forward as independents. This club is just so cosy!