Community Council - comments & representation?

[Grunk]

admin: this thread has been split from the hovercraft thread.

Does the CC have any authority?

What do they do exactly? are they a conduit to form a fair and objective representation of the entire Portobello Community without bias towards personal feeling or the sway of a small vocal minority?

Do I need to write to someone to make it known that not everyone is opposed to the hovercraft? will it make any diffference if I do?

[seanie]

They don't have any authority as such but they are statutory consultees and so frequently express opinions on a range of things, from local and national government consultations, through to planning policies and individual planning applications.

The statutory duty of a Community Council is to represent the broad spectrum of opinion and interests of their community. To that end the opinions and views of individual Community Councillors are secondary. We're supposed to communicate the views of the community over our own interests.

In reality it's very difficult to ascertain what the community's views are on each and every topic that comes up so you really have to rely on the membership of a Community Council being reasonably representative of their community or, alternatively, very aware that they might not be representative and so need to be careful when expressing their views.

If you are in favour of the hovercraft you'd probably be best submitting such a comment to the Planning application, although you could still contac the PCC to make your views known.

[Maria]

Feel free to write to express your views Grunk or even better, attend the monthly meetings and put your views in person. They are held on the last Monday of the month at 7.30 pm in the Baptist Church Hall (behind The Portobello Bar on the High Street) and are open to all.

At the last meeting, the point was made that many in Portobello were in favour of the hovercraft crossing and my understanding of the meeting was that the CC would be stating general support of the application, while also expressing concern regarding some of the detail. As the hovercraft application lies outwith the boundary of Portobello Community council , they are not statutory consultees for this particular issue.

[wangi]

A good reference on the ins and out of Community Councils is LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND COMMUNITY COUNCILS: ENHANCING THE RELATIONSHIP from the Scottish Office. It was published in 1998, and I don't know if there is a more recent document. In anycase the following is still relevant:

It is essential that community councils are properly representative of the communities that they serve. The purpose of community councils is to represent a full cross-section of the community. It is important that they should not appear to favour any particular sections of the community

...

It is also important that community councils are seen by their local communities to be actively making an effort to ascertain local views. It should not be automatically assumed that community councillors' own personal views on a subject will be those of the community as a whole.

[wangi]

Feel free to write to express your views Grunk

What's the best way to do that? Who is the Chair, Secretary etc and what are their contact details? (this page is blank)

Presumably without using dead trees!

[seanie]

At the last meeting, the point was made that many in Portobello were in favour of the hovercraft crossing and my understanding of the meeting was that the CC would be stating general support of the application, while also expressing concern regarding some of the detail.

I confess that Marya's recollection may be more accurate than mine. It was a long meeting and my will to live was slipping at times.

The Chair is John Stewart and the Joint Secretaries are Diana Cairns & Nick Stroud. I think there was some disquiet about giving out personal e-mail addresses but you could try the following;

portycc@me.com

[Maria]

At the last meeting, the point was made that many in Portobello were in favour of the hovercraft crossing and my understanding of the meeting was that the CC would be stating general support of the application, while also expressing concern regarding some of the detail.

I confess that Marya's recollection may be more accurate than mine. It was a long meeting and my will to live was slipping at times.

Can't say my concentration will have been any greater than yours Seanie - it was one very long meeting! I think, right at the start of the discussion, it was agreed that the letter would open by expressing general support of a hovercraft crossing, but there certainly seemed a long list of possible objections to parts of the application, so overall it'll probably be considered as much more of letter of objection.We'll need to wait until the minutes come out to know for sure. Let's hope the minute taker was feeling more alert!

Who is the Chair, Secretary etc and what are their contact details? (this page is blank)

Coincidentally, improving communication is on the agenda for future meetings. porty.org.uk used to carry photos of each CC member with an indication of their role. It is proposed that this is resurrected, though some members aren't keen. I must admit ,I hate getting my photo taken, but if a mug shot helps locals identify and therefore, approach community council members with their views, then that is surely a good thing? (I hope!!) We're also hoping to make much more use of 'The Reporter' and the community noticeboards to keep everyone in touch with what happens at meetings. Minutes of meetings, of course, are to be found in the library and online at porty.org.uk.

[wangi]

I think there was some disquiet about giving out personal e-mail addresses

Thanks for that address. The two secretaries certainly have their email addresses out the the wild already, so unsure it makes much sense hiding them away. It's also quite a strange thing to hide away if you're the secretary! After a bit of digging I've found a doc on the council website which lists contact details of chair & secretary for all the Edinburgh community councils.

But really - this the stuff which should be in blinking bold letters on the porty.org.uk website. Not necessarily personal emails, but a contact email for sure.

Coincidentally, improving communication is on the agenda for future meetings ... We're also hoping to make much more use of 'The Reporter' and the community noticeboards to keep everyone in touch with what happens at meetings.

To canvas the wider viewpoint of the community online forums like this really need to be embraced. Hell, Twitter and Facebook it too. This site is good reference to how at least a portion of the community feels about the big issues, and a good place "to be actively making an effort to ascertain local views" (as the Scottish Office report puts it).

I had an email conversation going on with Caroline Hoskin earlier last year when she was the (joint?) secretary - unfortunately that got buried in my email. Anyway the jist of that was the CC minutes tend to take a fairly long time to be publish and if they was anything that could be done to improve that? You just have to give a cursory look at other Edinburgh CC websites to see much quicker turnaround of minutes, often posting draft minutes online. This time lag in publishing minutes is especially bad when CC members then go on to give interviews to the press, reflecting on the CC position before the minutes are out.

Hopefully this thread can be discussed at the next CC meeting, and some of the constructive comments taken on board.

Thanks/L

[seanie]

In fairness, the PCC is aware of the need for better communication and I think we will be looking at ways to engage more directly with the wider community. But the statutory duty of Community Councils is actually pretty difficult to fulfill to the letter.

To genuinely ascertain, coordinate and reflect the views of the community, given the number of issues that come up, you'd need a near continuous stream of surveys, questionaires, public meetings etc. Not only do CCs not have the time or resources for that but most straightforward methods of gathering such information are prone to bias.

Who's going to go to the trouble to e-mail the CC to say 'I've just read about such and such a proposal in the Evening News. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not really fussed either way"?

I'll admit that a couple of dozen people meeting once a month in a church hall isn't an ideal way of divining the broad spectrum of opinion in a community of over 12,000 people. But adding the voices of a couple of dozen people who contribute to a local internet forum won't change that a whole lot.

Personally I think we need to be a more ambitious about how we can engage the community and genuinely reflect their wishes. I've been working on some ideas but they're not quite ready yet.

[Maria]

To canvas the wider viewpoint of the community online forums like this really need to be embraced. Hell, Twitter and Facebook it too. This site is good reference to how at least a portion of the community feels about the big issues, and a good place "to be actively making an effort to ascertain local views" (as the Scottish Office report puts it).

There is a distrust of the forum users being representative of the general view of residents. A common complaint is that the posters are often anonymous. As regards to embracing Twitter and Facebook, some are more enthusiastic than others about these new methods of communication. Not all CC members even have a computer or an email address.

I had an email conversation going on with Caroline Hoskin earlier last year when she was the (joint?) secretary - unfortunately that got buried in my email. Anyway the jist of that was the CC minutes tend to take a fairly long time to be publish and if they was anything that could be done to improve that? You just have to give a cursory look at other Edinburgh CC websites to see much quicker turnaround of minutes, often posting draft minutes online. This time lag in publishing minutes is especially bad when CC members then go on to give interviews to the press, reflecting on the CC position before the minutes are out.

I'm not sure how minutes could be published much quicker to be honest. The minutes on porty.org.uk are up to date - the CC don't meet in December - and as the last meeting was on 25 January the most recent ones haven't been drawn up yet. As soon as the minutes are circulated electronically to members they are posted up on porty.org.uk
Remember, the person taking the minutes is a volunteer, who has many other demands on his time. When meetings are as long as the last one (2.5 hrs), there can be 5 or 6 pages of A4 to be typed up and checked. We always get the minutes in draft form before the next meeting and it is this draft form that is posted up on the web. Some CCs pay someone to produce the minutes, but we don't have the funds to do so. We did employ someone for a short time last year, but reckoned it wasn't possible this year. It can be very difficult to persuade members to take on an office within the community council - we are currently without a treasurer- and I for one appreciate those who are willing to take on extra work.

BTW I'm keen to hear Seanie's cunning plan

[wangi]

To canvas the wider viewpoint of the community online forums like this really need to be embraced. Hell, Twitter and Facebook it too. This site is good reference to how at least a portion of the community feels about the big issues, and a good place "to be actively making an effort to ascertain local views" (as the Scottish Office report puts it).

There is a distrust of the forum users being representative of the general view of residents. A common complaint is that the posters are often anonymous. As regards to embracing Twitter and Facebook, some are more enthusiastic than others about these new methods of communication. Not all CC members even have a computer or an email address.

I wouldn't necessarily say the forum is representative of the general community, but it certainly illustrates the view points of some members of the community. It's one way amongst many others to ascertain some local viewpoints.

I think the anonymous argument is flawed. Would a councillor or CC member disregard the view of somebody who stopped and talked to them on the street simply because they didn't know / note down their name and address?

There is a time and place for more formal committee meetings, but to increase community participation the CC needs to reach out to people using the medium they are accustomed to. For "younger" people that's online...

[Porty]

I've been very critical of PCC. I have to keep reminding myself that it is a group of volunteers that are trying to "give someting back".

I think the anonymous argument is flawed. Would a councillor or CC member disregard the view of somebody who stopped and talked to them on the street simply because they didn't know / note down their name and address?..

I agree I believe it is a flawed argument- however you wouldn't, in normal circumstance, expect a community councillor or council to act on the basis of a contribution made by a small number of anonymous individua (s), woud you?

Anonymity: Portobello Community Council regularly takes action on the basis of representations made by a tiny number of residents who remain anonymous to thevast majority of the 30 or so members of the council. Heres an example from the minutes of the Nov 2009 meeting.

"274.9h Planning:
John Stewart reported that three residents in Bellfield Lane were objecting to an application to build a new house in a back garden there. Several other houses had already been built in this way, effectively creating a new street in this conservation area.


It was generally agreed that the Community Council should support the neighbours' objections on the grounds of over-development and health & safety. Diana Cairns mentioned the Planning Concordat, feeling that it was unreasonable of the City Council to expect us to respond to it. Very few other community councils seemed to have responded, but those that don't respond by 11th December risked having policies imposed upon them. It was generally agreed that Diana should register our objection to this demand.

Action: John Stewart to object to the proposed development in Bellfield Lane.
Action: Diana Cairns to object to the City Council's handling of the Planning Concordat. "

Therefore the upshot of 3 unamed residents making a representation to the community council is that the entire community council will object to this planning application. So groups as diverse as Joppa Tennis Courts, Portobello High School and Brighton Residents Assocaiion are putting their names to an objection for a proposal to build a house in Bellfield Street Lane. These 3 residents don't even have to turn up to a CC meeting to make their case, nor does their case have to be distributed to members of the PCC to allow them to make an informed decsion. It may not even be a formally writen, competent objection!! Almost noone on the community council has had sight of the objection. Marya or Seanie as serving members of the council- have you seen the objections, do you know the names and addresses of the objectors?

Presumably the applicants have employed a professional to make their application and that professional will be conversant with the prevailing planning policies. There is no guarantee that it will be accepted but now they have the entire community council against their desire- all the individuals and all the groups. All at the request of just three of their neighbours who don't have to identofy themselves or demonstrate their arguments.


If 3 neighbours submitted objections anonymously and directly to the Planning Department , for example by email without a full name and addresss. Planning would return the emial asking for identification. if none was forthcoming the objections would not be recorded.

So the way it is at the moment with PCC, and indeed it has been for sometime; if you want to object or complain about someting one of your neighbours wishes to do, but you don't want to be identified by the general public, then all you need do is approach a community councillor. The chances are it will be brought before the council and even the name of the councillor who has been approached could remain confidential. This seems to me to be a process that's more likely to lead to neighbour disharmony than anything else.

There are lengthy, well written guidance notes for Community Councills and members of those councils. The example above is just one area where Portobello Community Council falls well short of the required standards and purpose. And they have a bit of a cheek taking others to task about anonymity.

[seanie]

Ah, but the workings of a community council can be counter-intuitive.

Are you familiar with Quantum Mechanics at all?

[Porty]

No-you'll have to explain.

[Pal of Porty]

He definitely will have to explain it - unless he is in some way referring to random motion!

[Maria]

Marya or Seanie as serving members of the council- have you seen the objections, do you know the names and addresses of the objectors?
.

I'm afraid I missed the discussions during that part of the November meeting, but certainly the last meeting was attended by a resident of Bellfield Lane (he did give his name and address, but off the top of my head I can't recall the details!), who spoke about his objections to a planning application in his street. Various plans of the proposal were circulated to CC members and the grounds for objections were discussed. Whether it is another planning application or the same one that was mentioned at the November meeting I'm unsure.

[Porty]

I'm not sure either. What happened at the January meeting is somewhat irrelevant to the decision to object in november, which was taken on the basis of an anonymous and unseen objections (to the vast majority of the council) from just three out of 12,000 residents.

As a serving community councillor; how do you feel this fits with the Guidance Notes for Community Councils and the Code of Conduct for Community Councillors? The crux of which is Consultation prior to representation, making sure both sides of the story are heard. ensuring the wide range of community views are expressed and community councils should "rarely be involved in householder applications."?


Community_Councils/Guidance_Notes_Revised_March_2006.doc

[seanie]

No-you'll have to explain.

Forgive what will be a very amateurish explanation, but there are many deeply strange phenomenon in Quantum physics. Things can exist in a non-determined state, in a probability cloud, simultaneously both one thing and another until observed. The intervention of the observer resolves the non-determinacy.

The most famous thought experiment associated with this is Schrodinger's cat, whereby a cat sealed in a box is both alive AND dead, simultaneously, until the box is opened and the cat is observed to be either alive OR dead.

So you see, at the quantum level, a thing can exist both as 'something' AND 'not something' at the same time. On close observation however, the thing that was thought to be 'something' might suddenly become 'not something'.

A metaphorical dead cat.

Scientific understanding suggests that such effects only exist at the atomic and sub-atomic scale, not the world we're familiar with of people, places, cats and Community Councils.

But sometimes I wonder.....

[Bob Jefferson]

Some very interesting points. My involvement with the CC coincided with my ambition to create a community website. Back then, there were very few CC members who understood what I was trying to do and it was hard work getting them to participate at all. Some of that misunderstanding and mistrust has diminished with time and things are beginning to change because internet-savvy people like Marya and seanie are now members and because people like Porty are challenging the way the CC operates.

I have always felt that those who purported to represent the community should be both identifiable and contactable and that the whole process should be as transparent as possible, so I'm delighted to learn that the CC is ready to join the rest of us in the 21st century and make use of some of the new forms of communication we now have at our disposal. Portobello Community Council on Facebook? Why not?

Part of the problem is that there has not been an election of CC members for many years so none of the 'elected' members have any mandate. This is a situation that is too easily exploited and can result in cronyism and domination by small and unrepresentative interest groups.

[Porty]

(Wangi could you please fix that link i posted so it doesn't extrude the thread, thanks)

So you see, at the quantum level, a thing can exist both as 'something' AND 'not something' at the same time. On close observation however, the thing that was thought to be 'something' might suddenly become 'not something'.

A metaphorical dead cat.

Scientific understanding suggests that such effects only exist at the atomic and sub-atomic scale, not the world we're familiar with of people, places, cats and Community Councils.

But sometimes I wonder.....

Right, I'm with you now, I think. , and I can provide a very recent PCC experience to illustrate:

We both attended the PCC meeting on Burns day 2010 and, as you know, it came to light that there was a glaring error in the minutes of the Feb 2009 meeting, over a planning matter. It seems that rather than recording neighbours had written to the then Chairperson to register an objection. The feb minutes had recorded the objectors had in fact "approached" a completely different council member on the matter – a material difference that probably had little significance at the time but became more relevant a year on.

The current Chairperson immediately noted that the minutes must be incorrect and apologised because at that time minutes were being taken by someone who was prone to making mistakes (he, rather unfairly, named the individual). He asked the meeting if anyone else could remember the mistake and the current Co-Secretary said that she could still remember, even although the meeting had been almost a year ago!

Seanie, I'm sure you will remember this discourse but you are perhaps unaware of the whole story:

To help myself get a better understanding of the situation I checked the pertinent minutes more closely and if the minutes are correct, the minute-taker whom was prone to mistakes did not even attend the Feb 2009 meeting let alone take any minutes!! Indeed the Feb 2009 minutes mention that the individual in question would commence taking minutes the following month.

I am also curious as to why such an error wasn't picked up at the next meeting, it is customary for the PCC to propose and second the minutes of the preceding month's minutes as being an accurate record. As I expected, at the March 2009 meeting the Feb 2009 minutes were proposed and seconded as an accurate record of what transpired. The proposer was the now current Co-Secretary- the very same person who now recalls that she remembers the mistake in the minutes.

I did know about Schroedinger's cat but up until now it hadn't occurred to me to relate it to Portobello Community Council- are PCC minutes real?

Go figure.

[seanie]

You raise another interesting example, but in this particular instance the matter is already in hand.

I too thought that suggesting a particular individual may be responsible for a mistake in minutes that had been agreed was unnessecary. Then I noticed that the aforementioned individual was not listed as present at the meeting in question. Then I noticed, just as you did, that the person named did not commence taking minutes till the following month.

I have already passed this information to the chair and I am assured that the record will be clarified at the next meeting.

And whilst your curiosity to why this mistake was not picked up earlier is understandable, I'm not sure it is worth pursuing. At the time the minutes in question were taken, and for some period before, there was not a single designated minute taker. We had two Joint-Secretaries, Diana Cairns and Caroline Hosking. From memory they generally took turns or shared the task but, on occasion, others stepped into the fray.

Unfortunately, before the aforementioned person started minute taking in March, it was not always recorded in the minutes who actually took them.

But in any event it doesn't matter all that much. The minutes were agreed. When the February 2009 minutes (that are now revealed to be wrong) were discussed at the subsequent meeting, nobody but nobody dissented when Diana Cairns proposed them as an accurate record. So the mistake is a collective one and the role of any one individual really shouldn't be highlighted.

Except for one concern. The person who was recently suggested to have taken the minutes in question turns out not to have even been present at the meeting. That immediately narrows the shortlist of contenders for who did actually write them. And the majority of that shortlist were present on Monday when the minutes were being discussed and an innocent party was mistakenly being suggested as responsible.

That suggests that someone on the PCC might have a extremely poor memory. There's no shame in that at all, and it certainly shouldn't discount someone from expressing an opinon. But it might be worth other PCC members knowing who it was so they could judge someone's recollections in context.

[seanie]

I did know about Schroedinger's cat but up until now it hadn't occurred to me to relate it to Portobello Community Council- are PCC minutes real?

I quite confess that my proposition may be considered absurd in the highest degree. But then again...if you are not bewildered by quantum physics then you haven't being paying attention. Similarly, on the last Monday of every month bar July and December, I am sometimes equally bewildered despite my keen attention.

But I have a suggestion...

This is highly speculative I admit, but maybe, just maybe, there is a very special box hidden, in an as yet undiscovered location, somewhere in Portobello.

And inside this special box, somehow shielded from quantum decohererce, there exists, in a non-determined probabilistic cloud, the minutes/non-minutes, policies/non-policies and procedures/non-procedures of the PCC.

If we could only find this box, open it and observe its contents, then the wave function would collapse, the duality would be resolved, and we'd actually be able to establish by what criteria the PCC operates.

I suppose we could try asking the PCC directly but, on balance, I think looking for the box is worth a shot.

I've got a pick-axe somewhwere. Does anyone have a metal-detector?

[seanie]

Anyway....

There are real difficulties in trying you ensure that the PCC genuinely reflects the opinion of the broader community.

Say the PCC wanted to get a clearer picture of feelings on the hovercraft; how would they do it? An on-line thread or poll? Invite e-mails? Texts? A questionaire in the library? Comment boxes in shops along the high street?

I think all of the above could conceivably be useful. But they all run the risk of being skewed by a vocal minority, and the results may reflect who's got a better contact list, or who's more organsied. On a subject of any dispute, there's a real risk what feedback you do get isn't an accurate refelction of what the community at large feels.

I can think of a very good example of that in the recent Open Space Audit consultation.

Different forms of communication may be useful but, in itself, won't wont get round this basic problem. Making it easier to communicate views is all well and good, but you need to encourage as many people as possible to communicate in the first place. You need to get the unengaged to buy into the process, and contribute, otherwise your improved communications will just allow shouty people to shout louder.

I have an inchoate notion of how you might go about it, but it's still forming. My stumbling block at the moment is that, to be of real value, you need to get people to buy into another idea. Yes you want to engage people in civic discourse, to give their opinons on issues in the community, but with that there really needs to be a civic responsibility.

You need an understanding that, in return for taking people's views seriously, they themselves have a duty to give their views proper consideration.

[Porty]

That suggests that someone on the PCC might have a extremely poor memory. There's no shame in that at all, and it certainly shouldn't discount someone from expressing an opinon. But it might be worth other PCC members knowing who it was so they could judge someone's recollections in context.

It would be worth knowing, as the real story is very hard to fathom and it seems there are more concerns than when minutes are published.

It is conceivable that in Feb 2009 the minutes were taken inaccurately by the person that then proposed them as being an accurate record (and everyone agreed). Almost a year later she remembers that there is a mistake but at the same time appears to have forgotten that she or her co- secretary had taken the minutes. I'm sure there's an explanation of how these conflicting recollections came about and I hope your request for clarification is properly addressed.

Returning to Marya's point about the bloke from Bellfield Lane who appeared at the PCC meeting to object to his neighbours application, PAN 47 states that CC should rarely be involved in householder applications. Portbello Community Council meets 10 months of the year which equates to between 25 to 30 hours. Perhaps the bloke and others that want to use the CC to help with objections to householders applications should be told "sorry, we don't have a mandate to get involved in this type of application, please use the normal channels to make your objection"

Time is tight and the PCC would be best concentrating on matters of genuine interest to the wider community. After all, that's what it says in the Guidance and Planning Advice Notes. There is also the question of competency; plans are passed around at a PCC meeting for inspection by the councillors, Chances are that most are not conversant with planning policies etc and I'm sure most would acknowledge this. It is difficult to see what added benefit the opinions of less than knowledgeable group of people can bring to the planning process. I'm fairly sure that most community councillors would rather be dealing with community issues where they can help make a difference, rather than meddle in matters that are of little or no concern to the wider community.

[seanie]

Given the length of the last few meetings we might be looking at up to 25 hours per year, but really it should be more like 20. And as things stand the typical agenda already seems quite cluttered.

There is a valid argument that even a small planning application may be of community concern, not so much in itself, but in terms of cumulative effect; lots of small changes gradually creating a problem or changing things in an unwelcome way. However there's also a clear expectation that Community Councils won't routinely be commenting on householder applications. Certainly, just because an individual or group of local residents takes an issue to the PCC doesn't mean the PCC should necessarily become involved, though where and how you draw the line I'm not sure.

[allaboardtheskylark]

I am interested in the cat theory, but I think you have gone off on the wrong track Seanie. The cat is placed in a metal box with a vial of hydrocyanic acid and a radioactive isotope. Although radioactive isotopes have half life's they are not completely predictable. A single atom of the isotope decays, in the short term we don't know when.

This triggers a mechanism connected to a hammer, the vial breaks and the cat dies. We don't know when so the cat is considered to be both alive AND dead. Of course the cat cannot really be both, it is an observer's paradox.

This is a mind numbing experiment Schrodinger devised (which I am sure he later regretted) as a comparison to quantum theory relating to superposition, where subatomic particles are considered to be in more than one state, as they cannot be observed, or until they are observed they are in a "superposition of states".

Simple eh!

[allaboardtheskylark]

So why is the Schrodinger moggy the wrong comparison for the PCC?

Easy.

The cat does not really occupy more than one state, the observers lack of ability to observe it's state gives it it's superposition in the quantum theory comparison. It cannot be observed, it's state cannot be reported, hence the duality.

But, the PCC can be observed. It often should and does hold superposition. The PCC often does hold multiple position's or opinion's. It is designed to do so as it should reflect the conflicting views or positions of the community if reasonably sensible.

But there is an observers paradox.

The multiple position's are reported as one position. Conflicting views are swept to one side. The apathetic are ignored, even though they are most likely the majority in many cases in the wider community.

It is the opposite of Schrodinger's Cat.

Besides, the PCC meets in a wooden box, not a metal one the poor pussy expired in.

[allaboardtheskylark]

You raised the question of anonimity.

The COEC does not accept anonymous complaints on planning issues. Why is that?

[Porty]

Given the length of the last few meetings we might be looking at up to 25 hours per year, but really it should be more like 20. And as things stand the typical agenda already seems quite cluttered.

There is a valid argument that even a small planning application may be of community concern, not so much in itself, but in terms of cumulative effect; lots of small changes gradually creating a problem or changing things in an unwelcome way. However there's also a clear expectation that Community Councils won't routinely be commenting on householder applications. .

Yet on average PCC comment on a householder application every meeting. In John Stewart's recent communication he states the following: "Apart from the two applications in question, the PCC objected to 6 such applications in 2009"

So that's 8 applications. There are 10 meetings a year and at least one of those applications was discussed at multiple meetings. Seems to me that the PCC devote far too much time to issues where they are not expected to comment.

Seanie, it appears that rather than see themselves as an extension to the planning process- with a duty to collate and report the views of the wider community. PCC set their stall out as being mistrustful of the planning process and indeed behave like they know better than planners. They are supposed to be consultees but behave more like campaigners.

Do you agree?

And, in the dialogue above. I notice that Diana Cairns was writing on behalf of the PCC to object to the councils' handling of the planning concordat. In your view has the PCC been treated unreasonably in relation to this concordat? What the hell is it and why are the council being so bad to us?

[Porty]

You raised the question of anonimity.

The COEC does not accept anonymous complaints on planning issues. Why is that?

"Please remember that any letter of representation made on a planning application either through Online Planning or in writing is considered a public document.

As such, members of the public and organisations alike should note that any representations received in respect of any application will be made available for public inspection. In terms of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, the same representations will be copied on request. The representations will be published on our website.

The author of a representation is solely responsible for its content and accuracy.

Representations that are marked as confidential or as anonymous cannot be taken into account when planning applications are being considered. Neither type of submission will be published online. Anonymous submissions will be discarded either by shredding or deletion. Whilst we will retain representations marked as confidential, they will not be referred to in consideration of an application and their confidentiality cannot be guaranteed under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 or the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. This similarly applies to submissions made by agents on behalf of clients."

Hope that helps.

As things stand here in Portobello; if one wants to get around all of the above, all one needs to do is recruit Portobello Community Council as one's Agent and your anonymous objection will be submitted in their name. Take a look at the minutes; they are littered with " we have been approached by an unspecified number of neighbours from such and such street who wish to object to this or that"- hey presto!! one or two anonymous objectors manage to get the 15 strong council and all the member groups and organisations to support their cause. Whereas, if they personally wanted to object, whilst attempting to remain anonymous, their objection would go straight in the bin.

[seanie]

Seanie, it appears that rather than see themselves as an extension to the planning process- with a duty to collate and report the views of the wider community. PCC set their stall out as being mistrustful of the planning process and indeed behave like they know better than planners. They are supposed to be consultees but behave more like campaigners.

Do you agree?

I think there is a degree of mistrust that's largely misplaced. That's not to say that the planning process and policies aren't to be criticised, but there are underlying rationales, as well as balances to be struck between conflicting concerns, that at least make the process understandable, if you make the effort to understand it.

For instance, with the NWPDP I think the Fun Park development broadly complies, and where it doesn't the reasons are consistent with other planning policies. I'm not suprised it was recommended for approval and ultimately got consent. I think the effort put into objecting to it was largely misplaced, at least from a PCC standpoint. I can absolutely understand why people objected but in planning terms, given the policies that exist, it was pretty reasonable.

I also think the application for the Scottish Power site also broadly complies, but I think the planners might balk at approving it as it stands. If they don't approve it I think they'd be looking for fairly minor adjustments rather than a radical redesign. I believe the PCC position would be fairly characterised as being that the proposal doesn't comply with the NWPDP at all. Given that the planners wrote the NWPDP, and are the ones who get to recommend whether something complies or not, their opinion on the matter is probably more important.

On the other hand you have the Waste Transfer proposal. In planning terms I think it also broadly complies, although there is a reasonable case against. I think it's fair to say that the community is against the idea and so it's perfectly reasonable for the PCC to actively promote that view, regardless of where the balance lies in planning terms. If a situation is that clear cut then an advocacy/campaigining role is legitimate.

My concern would be the smaller scale, 'householder applications', where it's far less obvious that there is a broad community view to justify a position by the PCC and where, because of the scale of the project, the PCC doesn't actually discuss it in much detail.

My rule of thumb would be that if it's not worth setting aside the time to research and discuss a proposal properly, then you really shouldn't be discussing it at all.

[Porty]

Wow there is so much in that post that's sensible and reasonable. I don't have the knowledge to comment on the intricacies of the NWPDP and the competency of the PCC's representations. However, I'm happy to accept your take on it.

How does the PCC make such representations? Are the letters wrtitten by one person then approved by the group or a sub-group, what is the process? There's at least one person on the PCC that knows bundles about planning and who can decipher a Development Plan (you!!). Is your input represented? Do the rest of the PCC ever see the letters that go out in their name?

On the other hand you have the Waste Transfer proposal. In planning terms I think it also broadly complies, although there is a reasonable case against. I think it's fair to say that the community is against the idea and so it's perfectly reasonable for the PCC to actively promote that view, regardless of where the balance lies in planning terms. If a situation is that clear cut then an advocacy/campaigining role is legitimate.

Agreed. There has been and is demonstrable, wide- spread community support against the Viridor proposal and PCC are justified in getting behind the campaign. (There remains a duty on the PCC to represent all views but it is not clear that there is any pro- Viridor support)

[seanie]

Letters have on occasion been circulated for comment prior to sending, but more often they're not and they're not usually circulated afterwards either. At least I don't think they are; I usually find out from looking at the planning portal. As to myself, I'm not particularly knowledgable about planning policies, but I did work in an area that required an understanding of planning matters in general. You get used to the way things are written and, to some extent, how to read between the lines. An example of that springs to mind.

Think back to the process that led to the NWPDB. The proposals put together by the original architects weren't all that popular. I don't think they helped themsleves by the way they presented their proposals but there was one particular aspect that, at the time, I tried to defend.

There were lot's of complaints about the density, that it was too high. That fear may've been driven by the inclusion of the 10 storey blocks, but in reality the density wasn't excessive. If anything it was at the low end of what would be expected. Let me explain.

In general, across the UK as a whole, there has been a move towards higher densities. That's reflected in the planning framework, in our case the Lothians Structure plan and the Edinburgh plans. There are numerous drivers for that, but in large measure it's down to an increasing demand for dwellings (in particular for small households) coupled with restricted land supply. There's also the sustainability agenda; higher density is a price you pay for trying to maintain a greenbelt. So this means that when windfall sites become available, planning policy itself suggests they should be developed at higher densities than may've been expected in the past. This is also the driver that makes back garden development acceptable subject to other policies being satisfied.

Now the architects drawing up the framework went for a density around 70 dwellings per Ha, which actually wasn't that much higher than the surrounding area. Portobello has a fair proportion of flats and has had a lot of backland development in the past. Its density is higher than it might first appear, from memory around 60 Dw/Ha. So what was proposed really wasn't exceptional, and by concentrating some of that into 10 storey flats it created a relatively high proportion of public Open Space. I'm not saying the high flats were the best solution but they were part of a trade off that brought some potential benefits.

Now a lot of people thought the proposals were too high density. But someone thought otherwise. If you look at the consultation responses you'll find this description of a comment received from BL Developments, owners of the Scottish Power site;

Concern expressed regarding the densities of the proposed housing in the North Baileyfield area.

Far from density being too high they took the view that it was far too low. And what happened?

Well the much criticised architects plans were chucked in the bin to much rejoicing and the Council planning department drew up their own Development Brief which replaced any guidelines on density with a simple, even innocuous phrase, with considerable significance. The NWPDB states;

There is an opportunity to explore more innovative ways of achieving modern densities...

I'm not sure what someone unfamiliar with the general planning framework would take from that. But to anyone who is, modern densities means high densities.

The application currently under consideration is over 200 Dw/Ha.

I don't think the Planners were quite expecting that but there's nothing in the NWPDB that precludes such a high density in itself.

[Porty]

Letters have on occasion been circulated for comment prior to sending, but more often they're not and they're not usually circulated afterwards either. At least I don't think they are; I usually find out from looking at the planning portal.

Therefore it is perfectly possible that a community councillor could bring forward one or two complaints from neighbours, whose names will be withheld from other councillors and the general public. There may or may not be a discussion, if there is a discussion it will be brief and briefly minuted. A letter is then written on behalf all the members, they will never see the letter and there is no accountability to the quality and/or accuracy of the representation made.

That doesn't seem like a transparent, fair or robust process to me. And it doesn't seem to be consistent with either the guidance notes for community councils or with the rigours of the planning process.

It could even be possible that the anonymous neighbours made no approach to any councillor. The councillor didn't like a particular planning application and conjured up a couple of "objectors" to get the PCC to object. What checks are in place to prevent this sort of abuse?

[wangi]

I think there was some disquiet about giving out personal e-mail addresses but you could try the following; portycc@me.com

I think it must be routed via a black hole! Time to use the emails I know, but shouldn't.