Madam Chairman

Madam Chairman is upset by the outcome of the district development committee meeting. Too upset to talk about it at present. She has, however, dropped in a copy of the speech she gave prior to the meeting. Neighbours also spoke up. Comments were received that this was the best presented case thay had seen.

Depite these efforts, the vote went against democracy local opinion 6-2. This is a thrashing by any measure - it's not even as if it went to penalties!

A Triumph of Local Democracy - Not!

Well checking the Distrct Authority's Development Control Site on the web, The Coucillor sees that permission has been granted for the dwelling discussed in previous posts. It is interesting. The Councillor must ask the Clerk to check back how many of the Parish Council's rejections have actually been overturned... and consequently whether they have any value whatsoever.

Community Spirit

The Councillor has witnessed a serious outbreak of community spirit.

The furore over the planning story has begun to foment revolt. Neighbours are actually out in the street debating the pros and cons of the expected decision. The Councillor expects that what has actually pushed things over the edge is that the neighbour requesting the planning permission is actually moving away from the area. He will not have to live with the outcome of the decision and the evident opprobrium of the neighbours.

The Councillor finds this whole thing rather distasteful.

Planning Concerns

The Councillor is concerned. The District Council held a site visit where a set of plans had been submitted to develop a new property in the garden of an existing house. Many letters of objection had been received, the local resident's committee had objected, the Parish Council had objected (though The Councillor had absented himself from that discussion), and the District Councillor had three times rejected it in the past.

The District Council are recommending approving the application. Why?

• Has the character of the area changed? Previous rejections were based on the damage to the "amenity" of the area. Of course it hasn't.
  
• Is the new development unobtrusive? Of course it isn't, and it directly looks across the gardens of 3 or 4 neighbours.
  

This smacks of inconsistency, at least. But more worrying was the comment from the leader of the group on the site visit, who thought it would be a good idea to develop further into the large gardens. This seems perverse.

So, The Councillor has to ask "What is the point of local democracy, if the views of the local community (who will have to live with this development) are ignored?"