I am a planner, not a politician, with several years experience handling major cases and dealing with members both inside and outside committee. I think where I’m coming from is a wish to debunk some of the mythology that has grown up around planning.

Firstly, “officer/planner” and “member/politician” are just labels; ultimately we’re all just people. Secondly, “officer” and “member” are just roles within a larger system. “Officers make recommendations; members make decisions”. Well actually, 90% of all planning decisions are delegated to officers (more if you count decisions on discharging conditions etc) and members, as individuals, make no decisions at all – rather you might say they present their individual “recommendation” to the committee by way of their vote. And any decision made by a Local Authority (delegated or committee) is not a final decisions as it can be challenged through appeal or the courts. So is a committee decision to refuse, knowing an appeal is likely, anything more than a “recommendation” to an Inspector?

“Why should any applicant or member of the public be expected to tolerate a system where the outcome is potentially determined by the political posturing of a number of ill-informed politicians?”

Now there’s the nub, what is the proper role for members in planning decisions? If it is to be purely rational and analytical and “a good members’ decision” requires a thorough understanding of policies and guidance etc, this sounds to me like a “professional” task, and isn’t this best left to the professionals? But if their role is to be the voice of local communities, and to challenge the uncaring technocrats, then where is the harm in allowing them to give full voice to their principles and feelings at whatever point in the process they feel is most appropriate?

And ultimately wouldn’t allowing members to speak out in advance be more “honest” than the current (hopefully outgoing) system which police’s members’ public behaviour but actually does nothing whatsoever to stop them predetermining cases (in their own minds)?

Who the hell does Ed think he is to make the decision on who is contributing. Is the person who works full time and pays tax, but has no active part in the community contributing? Or is the unemployed person surviving on benefits, and yet very active in community groups and organisations contributing?
As ever, a totally ridiculous policy that just panders to the media immage they want to portray.

We need more Council housing. Right to buy was a disaster, we need for a new era of publically provided housing as the private sector has spectacularly failed to provide the types and numbers of housing we need.

Thing is, we need to get smarter in our game and use this. Re-quote it a bit. Have the President throw it back at Pickles next time he insults us again.

Problem is… Will we? Or will we just sit quietly again when Ministers fancy giving us another kick?

I know where my embittered and cynical money will be…

Because the officer is not the decision maker. They are making a recommendation,and should be writing a report which fairly (as far as possible) sets out the cases for and against a development and then offering their advice.

The Councillors are entitled to follow that advice or not. So long as they give their reasons for doing so.

What I meant was that there is a difference between forming a view on the probability of events occurring as described by a prosecutor based on conflicting witness statements, oral testimony, and forensic evidence on DNA matching – which clearly requires all of the “evidence” to be presented first AND on the other hand forming a view on whether a housing proposal displays adequate design quality, or whether the need for housing is sufficient to set aside other shortcomings. Neighbour representations (this is ugly) are NOT the same as witness testimony (I saw him do it) and my officer views (this is ugly) are NOT the same as forensic evidence (there is a DNA match). This is why I don’t believe it is a good analogy.

And if by my saying that a councillor may have the facts before a meeting you include in the meaning of “facts” third party and expert opinion – I never meant to include these – these are not facts. Which is actually the same point as above – witness testimony is presented as fact and whether or not it is also “true” is a different matter. Expert or lay opinion is not true/untrue and hence not factual. Although it may include facts, expert or lay opinion is ultimately just another judgement on the significance of those facts. “The house is 8 metres high” is a fact – “the 8 metre high house is too tall in its context” is opinion.

Consider this, why is it OK for a planning officer to reach a view BEFORE hearing the debate at Committee, but it’s not OK for a Councillor to do the same?

The duty on the decision maker (for the moment at least) is to have regard to the development plan and other material considerations etc. I think a Committee member would only breach this duty IF they stubbornly maintained a prior position in spite of material considerations BUT the fault is in refusing to consider the issues when they vote, NOT in forming or expressing a prior position. The stating of a prior position does not breach this duty neither does deciding how to vote. The only thing that breaches this duty is voting without considering all material considerations.

Everything else is risk management with a view to what might go wrong (but might not) and /or playing your cards close to your chest in order to avoid embarrassment and U Turns. And I think that member’s should be trusted to be adult about this. And I actually mean that. After all if officers can’t trust members, why should members trust officers?