Portobello Community Council and Planning Matters

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Oct 2009, 23:49

Recently I read an article entitled Portobello Amenity Society (page 6 of the Autumn 2009 Reporter, which is available on--line) by John Stewart, writing as chairperson of the Portobello Amenity Society. Since the article was published John has been appointed Chair of Portobello Community Council.

In the article John makes the following statement "PAS is represented on Portobello Community Council and monitors and responds to new planning applications on its behalf." - which is not true.

I have written to John and asked him to publish a correction in the Reporter to explain to readers that the organisations can take quite different stances on the same planning matter. The new high school being a good example; PAS objected to a school in the park and PCC did not. Instead they communicated the diversity of views expressed by their commitee, as they are duty bound to do.

PCC have a constitution, in common with other community councils and it simply doesn't allow a third party, in this case PAS, to assume responsibilty for monitoring and responding to planning matters on its behalf.

One of the risks of delegating in this manner is that the decison and quality of response to applications could inadvertently fall into the hands of one individual or a small group of strong-minded individuals. A group that cannot possibly hope to reflect the cross community views of a 30 member community council.

As things stand at present, John is taking advice from the city council and is resisting publishing any correction. Indeed he is actively defending the statement on the basis that; whatever process has been put in place, has been around for more than 12 years. Which IMHO is neither good enough nor compliant with the constitution.

I'm happy to post the correspondence if anyone would like to be kept informed?

(Perhaps someone with the necc skills could publish the article here)

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 31 Oct 2009, 00:05

Well the Community Council's just been re-elected. Given the number of new faces it'd be worthwhile reviewing what procedures should be in place, as well as discussing the role of the Community Council in the Planning process.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2009, 12:42

Couldn't agree more, I have suggested that the process is discussed at a forthcoming PCC meeting. I think this is what John Stewart is asking the council about, he has promised to keep me informed.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Nov 2009, 13:15

At October's CC Meeting a suggestion was made by one of the members, that planning was a suitable topic for a future meeting and that a member of the Planning Dept be invited to address the CC.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Nov 2009, 21:13

That's a strange one. Why would someone from Planning want to attend a PCC meeting?

Did the suggestion come from a new member who is unaware of the constituted sub-committee that is responsible for responding to planning matters on behalf of PCC?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 10 Nov 2009, 12:45

Porty wrote:That's a strange one. Why would someone from Planning want to attend a PCC meeting?

I don't know if anyone will .

Did the suggestion come from a new member who is unaware of the constituted sub-committee that is responsible for responding to planning matters on behalf of PCC?

It was made by a member who was on the CC prior to the recent election and was, I think, in response to the amount of discussion that has been generated at CC meetings recently by various major planning applications such as the Scottish Power site and the Funpark site.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Nov 2009, 13:50

Marya wrote:
Porty wrote:That's a strange one. Why would someone from Planning want to attend a PCC meeting?
I don't know if anyone will .

Must admit I didn't know about the constitued sub-commitee when I served on the PCC but its been around for a while. Says so in this copy email i got from John Stewart.

From: John Stewart [mailto:johnmacgregorstewart@talktalk.net]
Sent: 14 October 2009 15:19
To: Stephen McIntyre
Subject: Re: PAS/PCC and The Porty Reporter

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your email. Robert had indeed forwarded your previous emails to me and had also sent me his reply to you. I had suggested additions to this which he incorporated.

PAS being constituted as a planning sub-committee for the PCC was agreed and set up many years ago, probably over 15 as it was decided long before I joined the PCC which was 12 years ago

Seems many of us were in the dark about this arrangement. a constituted sub-committee that is a third party? How can we be sure they follow the formal guidance for Community Councils on planning matters? After all, there is no obligation on them to do so.