District Councillors aren’t allowed to make our minds up in advance on a planning application. But we CAN try to ensure that residents are consulted properly.
There is currently a planning application – 10/00475/COU – for a new takeaway in London Road. Chris and June Lumley were concerned that nearby residents hadn’t received letters from the council. So they have arranged for an additional 8 official letters to be sent out to some homes in London Road and Danbury Road, and for a site notice to be displayed.
If residents have any concerns , they can of course contact Chris and June.
What is the point in responding to RDC consultations? Lots of people took the trouble to respond to the recent DPD consultation but RDC have refused to publish any details of objections from about 800 people in the Rayleigh/Rawreth, Hullbridge, East Ashingdon and Hawkwell areas. They have also repeatedly refused to publish objections on one particular issue in the Hockley area, despite publishing other comments.
It appears that the council is judge and jury on what responses they deign to publish. Is this an example of democracy in David Cameron’s new community?
I absolutely agree Brian, RDC hold the required DPD consultation so that they can be seen to do the right thing but then totally ignore the negative responses.
A waste of money and a complete waste of people’s time – I am certain that they hope we will eventually get fed up and go away!!
Thanks Lyn. What is happening now is even worse. They are suppressing comments, so they no longer “being seen to do the right thing”. If they do not publish the responses, there is no way of checking what they put in their official summary. Democracy is not being seen to be done.
I hope that evryone who submitted responses to the DPD will check that their response has been properly entered and complain to RDC if not. People power can win!
I do not think it right for the Council to give the public ready access to full consultation responses which are submitted on line but not those submitted on paper. This policy simply discriminates against those who either cannot or chose not to use the online system and prevents those people who are interested in seeing all of the consultation responses as submitted, in the raw state as it were, before the Council prepares a written analysis or summary of all representations. Complete transparency can only be delivered if all responses are published in full whether these are submitted on line or by alternative means. Unless the Council can be seen to be completely transparent in the process leading to analysis and summary then in my opinion soundness is compromised when it need not be if the Council changed its policy (from that which the Council outlined to me when I complained) and resourced accordingly to fully support the ethics of an SCI without compromise.
As you say, Brian, the question is as to how independent validation of the Council’s written analysis or summary of all representations can be undertaken?
If there is no transparency then the credibility of the evidence can be, entirely reasonably, challenged.
On that basis I will be supporting residents who object.
John, I shall bring Council’s and the public’s attention to this at our meeting on the 1st September
John, As a resident of Rochford district and someone who takes a keen interest in local government, I have wrtten many time regarding the lack of transparency with this Council. I believe the Council itself is flawed and needs some fresh ideas but the Tory Councillors are so entrenched in this type of cabinet government that they would not know how to be open and transparent. It is almost back to the old Soviet ways of ruling only in place of Communists read Conservatives. I have no idea and have no faith in this specific local government being able to change its ethics into becoming an open, honest and transparent Council. I honestly believe that it is time we had a change in Rochford District, with ideas and views being sought from all parts of the political spectrum. Until that time we will all be living under this cloud.
Mike
On the first Thursday in May in 3 out of 4 years, a substantial proportion of the residents of Rochford District have the chance to make their views known. It seems to be the case that they have been very happy with the Conservative administration for almost 10 years now.
Mmmm Hilton, if you look at the elections this year, if I have done my sums correctly, in the district council elections the Conservatives got 13344 votes out of a total of 23493.
That’s just 56 percent of the votes cast. Yes you are obviously winning most seats – part in thanks to the organisation that you helped build up, but I not sure that 56 percent support indicates ‘very happy’.
And that includes the special case of Hawkwell South, where the contest was solely between Tory and BNP (amd even I would have voted Tory in that instance) giving Heather Glynn a big Conservative majority.
And there were plenty of voters in Central Ward this year that were far from happy, not enough I grant you but the swing was still there. The cabinet system is far from popular and very undemocratic.
Hilton, I was one of the few who actually took advance of the opportunity you mention and agree its a shame that more people didn’t. But, if this administration is as popular as you claim, can you please explain why they have been manipulating consultation responses. This is tantamount to vote rigging and destroys all trust in the council. Is it a sign of democracy in David cameron’s new community?
I do not agree with your total figures Chris, perhaps you used only the seats in this constituency, but the percentage you quote of 56% is not far away. I make it marginally below that.
However, there were 13 seats fought, 36 candidates stood under 8 different labels so in that event, to gain around 56% of the total votes cast is a very good achievement. After all, very few MPs obtain 56% of the vote and in most cases there are only 3 or 4 candidates.
Regarding your point Brian, I am not a councillor and my involvement is restricted to the organisational side of the Party. So I am in no position to enter into a debate on that subject but I do not believe for a moment that there has been any manipulation or vote rigging.
Hilton, Thank you for your comments.
RDC have admitted posting 460 responses to DPD section E10 when they were clearly marked for section TC9 and no reference whatsoever was made to E10. RDC stated that comments “were registered against what was felt to be the most appropriate option” and have refused repeated requests to correct the position.
It is entirely inappropriate that RDC should take it upon themselves to redirect valid and appropriate comments to alternative sections simply because they think they know best. To allow this would negate the whole point of having a public consultation.
We can argue whether their intentions were honourable or not but the point here is simply that they should not censure residents’ comments. This is not democratic and undermines the council’s integrity.
The council can put this right easily but refuse to do so. You should be asking your councillor why?
Hilton, sorry, I should add that you can easily confirm the above by looking at any of the responses poasted under E10 of the DPD consultation. None mentioned E10 but all clearly mention TC9 and none are posted there.
Its not cricket as they say!
Brian
As I said earlier, I am in no position to enter into a debate on this subject but I do not believe that there was any manipulation or vote rigging, as you describe it. Are you really saying that the senior officers would have colluded in that?
[edited]
Hilton,
I have made a formal complaint which has been rejected by Shaun Scrutton and, the appeal, by Graham Woodhouse. They believe it is in order for RDC to attribute responses to another section than intended. The evidence appears 460 times on the Online Consultation system.
Its no wonder that people distrust politicans!