Should planning applications be determined

a) within nationally agreed timescales?
b) to fit in with councillors' holiday plans?

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=17707

More questions....

Are they all going on holiday together?
If so, where should we avoid?
Why do these campaigning councillors prefer to lie on a sunbed rather than cancel their hols?

I would say a). That planning meeting was scheduled months ago, as was the exec meeting the following night. If you don't want to miss important council business, do not book a holiday to clash with it.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I would say a). That planning meeting was scheduled months ago, as was the exec meeting the following night. If you don't want to miss important council business, do not book a holiday to clash with it.

"Council planning officers were aware that several committee members ... would be away for the committee meeting when the date for determination was set several weeks ago."

Quoted from richard.garvie

I would say a). That planning meeting was scheduled months ago, as was the exec meeting the following night. If you don't want to miss important council business, do not book a holiday to clash with it.

Are you saying that the councillors booked their holidays after the date was announced (many people book holidays almost a year in advance!)

Did you have a point B?  Then again did you really have a point A!

Meetings are scheduled months and months in advance, although the agenda only comes up a few weeks in advance. If you want be a councillor, you should take your holiday during the time set aside by officers for you to do so. If you decide to book a holiday and the agenda turns out to be important, it's tough luck I'm afraid. I think the Tories made a big concession here, fair play to them on this one.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Meetings are scheduled months and months in advance, although the agenda only comes up a few weeks in advance. If you want be a councillor, you should take your holiday during the time set aside by officers for you to do so. If you decide to book a holiday and the agenda turns out to be important, it's tough luck I'm afraid. I think the Tories made a big concession here, fair play to them on this one.

Did they really?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Did they really?

Yes.  They moved a long planned meeting so the holidaying councillors could attend.

Quoted from blackdog

Yes.  They moved a long planned meeting so the holidaying councillors could attend.

Is that a big concession?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Is that a big concession?

I would say so.

Quoted from blackdog

I would say so.

Like it cost others time and money?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Like it cost others time and money?

It delayed the whole planning process by a month, so therefore it's a concession. The council could have gone ahead with the meeting, but instead they postponed a pre planned meeting because of holidaying councillors. It winds me up that said councillors were not so bothered about missing the exec meeting, aren't we paying these people to attend meetings to represent us through council tax?

Quoted from richard.garvie

It delayed the whole planning process by a month, so therefore it's a concession. The council could have gone ahead with the meeting, but instead they postponed a pre planned meeting because of holidaying councillors. It winds me up that said councillors were not so bothered about missing the exec meeting, aren't we paying these people to attend meetings to represent us through council tax?

To be fair they are members of the minority party so their presence at Exec Meetings is, essentially, superfluous.

But they represent the taxpayers!! They are supposed to be attending for the purpose of holding the council to account. I'm sorry, maybe I am completely unrealistic as to what is required of a councillor recieving around £10k a year of taxpayers money. There is a holiday period, a very generous period at that. If they want to fly away outside of that time, they are simply showing a lack of regard for council business, whether it be something in their ward, a big project like the racecourse plans or whatever.

Quoted from richard.garvie

But they represent the taxpayers!! They are supposed to be attending for the purpose of holding the council to account. I'm sorry, maybe I am completely unrealistic as to what is required of a councillor recieving around £10k a year of taxpayers money. There is a holiday period, a very generous period at that. If they want to fly away outside of that time, they are simply showing a lack of regard for council business, whether it be something in their ward, a big project like the racecourse plans or whatever.

How can they hold the council to account at a meeting where they are outvoted 2 to 1 at every opportunity?

Quoted from richard.garvie

Meetings are scheduled months and months in advance, although the agenda only comes up a few weeks in advance. If you want be a councillor, you should take your holiday during the time set aside by officers for you to do so. If you decide to book a holiday and the agenda turns out to be important, it's tough luck I'm afraid. I think the Tories made a big concession here, fair play to them on this one.

Pointless distraction anyway regarding the council meetings, Business is not done at the council meetings anyway - all sorted out beforehand behind closed doors. The Newbury few inform the pet Councillors of what they want - pet councillors then go and produce it.

Council meetings are there only for public display and for councillors to say - see this is why we are required and are worth the money.
Just a game of charades really.

As others have stated it would not matter one jot if the councillors went off on holiday. Just leave a memo to be read out by the Chairman stating they object and why - job done - taxpayers money saved on expenses for attending meeting.  Pat on the back from Newbury few for pet Councillors etc!  Newbury democracy at it's best. Same as it ever was!  

The planning committee voted in favour of the cattle shed on the Newbury Showground despite the planners wanting a refusal. This has thrown the planning department and WBC into a blue funk. I assume it hasn't happened before but now it is being referred to the District Planning Committee because the decision had gone against the planning officer, Michael Butler's, recomendation.

The planning application for the Racecourse was postponed but what matters if they had all been there and voted against what the planners wanted, it would presumably have just gone on to another stage.

I know the Town Council cannot make planning decisions, but it seems to me that the WBC western area planning committee can't either.

Quoted from brian

The planning committee voted in favour of the cattle shed on the Newbury Showground despite the planners wanting a refusal. This has thrown the planning department and WBC into a blue funk. I assume it hasn't happened before but now it is being referred to the District Planning Committee because the decision had gone against the planning officer, Michael Butler's, recomendation.

The planning application for the Racecourse was postponed but what matters if they had all been there and voted against what the planners wanted, it would presumably have just gone on to another stage.

I know the Town Council cannot make planning decisions, but it seems to me that the WBC western area planning committee can't either.

Not without the correct instructions from those that count!  

Only the councillors would only save travel allowance by not attending (if they claim it). The general allowance is still paid whether they attend or not!!!

I'm sort of struggling to understand the planning procedure.
We have two planning committtes the Western and the Eastern. Both of which have delegated councillors making up the quorum. The planning officers who are not elected decide if an application should be allowed or refused.

If the planners reccomend refusal and the Western committee confirm refusal. Is that it. No further reference to the District Committee. The same yardstick for a recommended approval.

If the planners reccomend refusal and the Western committee go against that recommendation and approve, does a further phase of the application kick in and the District planning committee look again at the application.  In the meantime, the applicant has been told that his development is approved.

Can the District planners overturn the decision.

If this is true, what is the point of these Western and Eastern meetings being held, wasting expenses payments and possibly the extra money paid to councillors for serving on any committee or is this jobs for the boys.

If you know, please share it with me, the WBC website doesn't make it clear as far as I can see.

Quoted from brian

I'm sort of struggling to understand the planning procedure.
We have two planning committtes the Western and the Eastern. Both of which have delegated councillors making up the quorum. The planning officers who are not elected decide if an application should be allowed or refused.

If the planners reccomend refusal and the Western committee confirm refusal. Is that it. No further reference to the District Committee. The same yardstick for a recommended approval.

If the planners reccomend refusal and the Western committee go against that recommendation and approve, does a further phase of the application kick in and the District planning committee look again at the application.  In the meantime, the applicant has been told that his development is approved.

Can the District planners overturn the decision.

If this is true, what is the point of these Western and Eastern meetings being held, wasting expenses payments and possibly the extra money paid to councillors for serving on any committee or is this jobs for the boys.

If you know, please share it with me, the WBC website doesn't make it clear as far as I can see.

If they made it clear then everyone would know and they may have objections on their hands? So sorry it will not be made clear. usual WBC tactics.  

If the planning committee goes against the planning officers advice there is greater grounds for appeal - after all the officers know best.

It's one of the many insanities that the Localism Bill ought to sort out, but the b****y thing's so confusing I haven't got a clue if it will or won't.

Also, if an application has a lot of response or is a major scheme, it generally goes to district planning.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Also, if an application has a lot of response or is a major scheme, it generally goes to district planning.

That may be the case, but does it go to the Western or Eastern planning committee first. The application in question, in case you missed it, was the approval of the showground cattle shed by the Western group against the planners recommendation. It now has been referred to the District for what appears to be a second chance to refuse.

Quoted from Cognosco

If they made it clear then everyone would know and they may have objections on their hands? So sorry it will not be made clear. usual WBC tactics.  

I thought the council just did what the 'Newbury Few'  dictated? You do need to stick to the same story, no matter how daft.

Can I just add to previous comments that I am not just targetting the councillors who missed this meeting. Any councillor who books a holiday when there is a full council or exec meeting scheduled does so at their own risk, they get an allowance to represent us at those meetings. Forget the planning meeting for a second, those councillors who raised this issue were scheduled to attend the exec meeting the following day, but there was no request to postpone that meeting. My point is that how can you justify any council business being more important than other business regardless of party affiliation? How many councillors missed full council today? There has been no full council meeting since May, yet some councillors still did not attend. I just don't think that is value for the taxpayer.

Quoted from richard.garvie

There has been no full council meeting since May, yet some councillors still did not attend. I just don't think that is value for the taxpayer.

It's much more expensive to keep 52 councillors trousering £500,000 a year in allowances.

Quoted from Muddler

It's much more expensive to keep 52 councillors trousering £500,000 a year in allowances.

Quite.  I keep raising the question of whether anyone has looked at reducing the number of councillors and merging WBC staffing structures with other authorities, as they are in West Suffolk and elsewhere, and no seems to be able to answer it.  It's the 'looked at' bit I'm particularly interested in - if they have, what was the outcome and if they haven't, why not? Hmm?  Even User has kept his large rattle collection inside his pram when I've mentioned this one recently so perhaps something's afoot.

I think even the Tories and the Lib Dems realise how hard it is to get 52 candidates. My own proposal in the Labour manifesto at the local elections was to reduce the number of councillors to one member per ward and shave a couple of exec positions, which would have saved around £260,000 a year.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I think even the Tories and the Lib Dems realise how hard it is to get 52 candidates.

Not just them - Labour are really struggling judging by the quality of their spokesman!

Quoted from richard.garvie

I think even the Tories and the Lib Dems realise how hard it is to get 52 candidates. My own proposal in the Labour manifesto at the local elections was to reduce the number of councillors to one member per ward and shave a couple of exec positions, which would have saved around £260,000 a year.

Which would guarantee we are run by the Useless Tories forever (see rural vs urban ratios). Why would you want that?

I don't think it would. I reckon that the following seats are winnable for non Tory parties:

Birch Copse
Calcot
Westwood
Theale
Burghfield
Mortimer
Thatcham North
Thatcham West
Thatcham Central
Thatcham South & Crookham
Clayhill
Speen
Victoria
Northcroft
Falkland
St Johns
Greenham
Hungerford

Safe Tory seats

Aldermaston
Basildon
Bucklebury
Chieveley
Cold Ash
Compton
Downlands
Kintbury
Lambourn
Pangbourne
Purley
Sulhampstead

I'm not saying it would be easy to win the seats or the council, traditionally the Tories only lose power locally when the Tories are in Government and extremely unpopular. But under the new system, nobody can claim that either the Tories or opposition have any kind of advantage, it's as fair as it ever will be in West Berkshire. Some of the smaller rural seats could be merged too, but then the Tories could claim that we are trying to make it harder for them and easier for us.

I think if there was only 28 wards, the council would be leaner, meaner and in much better shape. We wouldn't have people turning up just to sit and listen. How many of the councillors never speak or do anything for their allowance? In my opinion, it just isn't good value and I would much rather have a stronger, more cost effective council than what we have now.

*28 seats

Quoted from Muddler

Which would guarantee we are run by the Useless Tories forever (see rural vs urban ratios). Why would you want that?

If you redraw the ward boundaries so that each has approximately the same population and  there are as many of them as the number of councillors wanted (eg 25) then the balance of the council would be much the same as, for instance Victoria Ward (LD) in Newbury probabably has much the same population as three rural Tory wards.

The current situation awards multiple seats to high population wards so simply making all current wards have one councillor could be profoundly unfair.

It's not a bad idea, though paradoxically, I don't think it would improve the calibre of councillors. That would need a relegation of party politics.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I don't think it would. I reckon that the following seats are winnable for non Tory parties:

You also reckoned that Labour might get 26 seats at the last local election though.

Based on our data, we could have done. Obviously those who said they would vote for us didn't bother.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Based on our data, we could have done. Obviously those who said they would vote for us didn't bother.

Is that list of wards based on your data too?

Quoted from richard.garvie

Based on our data, we could have done. Obviously those who said they would vote for us didn't bother.

Ah there is the lesson to be learned! Statistics can be made to say whatever you want. The final say is an X against your name!  

Quoted from user23.3

Is that list of wards based on your data too?

No, those are the wards that have traditionally been marginals.

Quoted from Cognosco

Ah there is the lesson to be learned! Statistics can be made to say whatever you want. The final say is an X against your name!  

Absolutely!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

No, those are the wards that have traditionally been marginals.

Which do you think was the ward to most recently have a Labour district councillor?

Quoted from user23.3

Which do you think was the ward to most recently have a Labour district councillor?

I don't think your petty question matters one iota? Politics is going to have to change drastically by the time the next election comes around. People are so fed up with politicians, financial institutions etc and believe they are no longer fit for purpose! All the local councils need sorting out from top to bottom, they have never really represented the local taxpayer, again not fit for purpose. That is without even looking at the cost for what they actually achieve.