Takeaways, restaurants & Community Council representations

[seanie]

I certainly think the letter could've been worded better, but the impact will be accidental. In an attempt to be fair and articulate a range of views it's unintentionally given undue emphasis to the reasons for objecting. That's maybe a bit embarrassing, and we may need to be more careful about tone and balance, but it's hardly a hanging offence.

[Porty]

Maybe there should be an offical motion to censure at the next PCC, in that the letter did the reverse of what it was intended to? And the writer invited to tender their resignation forthwith?

There could be a problem with this strategy, particularly if the secretary is delegated to write the letter of censure. Imagine her surprise on opening a unanimous commendation from her fellow councillors?

[seashell]

Wait a minute. I don't think I was over-reacting, because I read this thread as saying that the PCC voted one way but the contents of the communication conveying that were at the very least unclear and were actually interpreted as being an objection. It also appeared that the person writing the letter was also the person who had raised the objection in the first place.
Can you confirm if that is the case?

[seashell]

Maybe there should be an offical motion to censure at the next PCC, in that the letter did the reverse of what it was intended to? And the writer invited to tender their resignation forthwith?

There could be a problem with this strategy, particularly if the secretary is delegated to write the letter of censure. Imagine her surprise on opening a unanimous commendation from her fellow councillors?

Not if she resigned before the meeting!!

BTW - did you mean commendation or condemnation?

[Porty]

The irony is just too much to bear:

It was noted that the Architects had written their own notes of our last meeting and that
Diana Cairns, as Secretary, had compiled a contemporaneous note of our meeting, which
had been sent to the Architects. Caroline and Diana expressed concern that the
Architects’ notes did not reflect the meeting’s concerns, and gave far too positive account
of the Community Council’s responses, and this has been communicated to them.
It was agreed that John Stewart will draft a response, based on the concerns mentioned
above, and in the previous meeting’s Minutes, to the expected Planning Application. He
will circulate this via Caroline as this month’s Secretary, to the Community Council, for
comments prior to sending in our official response.
Action: Caroline to send these Draft Minutes to the Architects ; Diana to send her notes
of the previous meeting to John Stewart; Caroline to summarise the issues she has taken
from the Development Brief relating to this site, to John Stewart; John to write draft and
final response to the expected Planning Application, with C Councillors comments.

[Mark Cameron]

Sorry don't know the full facts to this one but was the planning application actually granted or declined by CEC?

If the latter then certain members of PCC should hang their heads in shame on this one as their actions may have had a real negative impact on the individual's life/plans/dreams.

Don't get me wrong I'm not having a pop at the PCC - I take my hat off to them as they get off their butts and give up their time to do this work. For those that think they could do better I guess they could always stand for election?

I do however feel that if the PCC made themseleves more open and transparant and were seen to be promoting engagement and interaction to really get the real feeling about development appliations in our community they'd get more people on their side (or at least would give fewer people an opportunity to pick holes in things).

[seanie]

Wait a minute. I don't think I was over-reacting, because I read this thread as saying that the PCC voted one way but the contents of the communication conveying that were at the very least unclear and were actually interpreted as being an objection. It also appeared that the person writing the letter was also the person who had raised the objection in the first place.
Can you confirm if that is the case?

I don't think so. My understanding is that the Chair wrote the letter, although presumably with some input from Diana given the similarity in wording to her personal letter of objection.

[Mark Cameron]

Was trying to find the PCC website.

It didn't come up when I Googled 'Portobello Community Council' so I looked at porty.org where there is information about PCC but no link to the website that I could see.

Could someone give post a link for me please. It might be worth adding a link to it from Porty.org?

[wangi]

http://portobellocc.org/

[Porty]

I don't think so. My understanding is that the Chair wrote the letter, although presumably with some input from Diana given the similarity in wording to her personal letter of objection.

Yeah the letters, which are attached, are virually identical, what an unfortunate accident.

11_02724_FUL-OBJECTIONS-1267358.pdf

(167 KiB) Downloaded 182 times

To answer Mcd's question, the application was declined. As I said previously, there were 4 change of use applications between May and October (3 on the same side). Two were approved. One was rejected and one was withdrawn prior to a decision. The latter two were both subject to comment by PCC who simply ignored the ultimately succesful applications. I should add that one of the applications PCC did not comment on was our own at 152 PHS.

The application at Nr100 was a clear breach of the local plan as was one of the succesful applications.

Edit: added the letters mentioned above.

[seashell]

Wait a minute. I don't think I was over-reacting, because I read this thread as saying that the PCC voted one way but the contents of the communication conveying that were at the very least unclear and were actually interpreted as being an objection. It also appeared that the person writing the letter was also the person who had raised the objection in the first place.
Can you confirm if that is the case?

I don't think so. My understanding is that the Chair wrote the letter, although presumably with some input from Diana given the similarity in wording to her personal letter of objection.

Okay - so just to be clear, I was right in saying that the PCC voted one way but the contents of the communication conveying that were at the very least unclear and were actually interpreted as being an objection.
And the letter was very similar to the letter of objection written by Diana Cairns, although as you now reveal it was (at least nominally) written by the Chair.
I can't begin to see how I was over-reacting. In fact, I think I was rather moderate. I don't have a personal interest in the application, but if I did, I'd be furious at this farce.
It is misrepresenatation of the democratic process at the very least. I hope the situation will be fully and frankly discussed at the next meeting if the PCC wishes to retain any credibility at all. How strange that the person with a personal objection just happens to be quoted in a letter which then misreflected the PCC decision.

[seanie]

I've asked to speak about the matter at the next meeting.

[seashell]

I hope you will ask for an official apology from those involved to be formally tendered and minuted.

If resignationsare not forthcoming, perhaps those responsible for managing to misrepresent the democratic decision could be invited to demit their positions? They can hardly hope to credibly represent the community after this.

Perhaps it would be prudent for the PCC to decide that future communications like this should start with the voting result? (11/2) It would, of course, be prudent to try to achieve some semblance of balance, rather than to quote verbatim from the one objection received, thus giving it totally undue prominence. This reflects very poorly indeed on the PCC.

[wangi]

Seashell - 28th Nov, 19:30 at Baptist Church Hall, 185 Portobello High Street

I don't think it's great call; but the risks of a time-saving cut'n'paste eh!

[Bob Jefferson]

I can see that the Planning Officer has to make a judgement call on whether a letter is an objection, in support or just a comment and that sometimes it may not be entirely clear from the content of that letter. Wouldn't it be prudent, in such cases, for the author to make it quite clear by using the words 'Support', 'Objection' or 'Comment' as a heading? And in the CC's case, perhaps some indication as to how the vote went? It would be even simpler if they just used the Planning Portal because they would then be required to tick one of the boxes - support, object or neutral.

[seashell]

I can see that the Planning Officer has to make a judgement call on whether a letter is an objection, in support or just a comment and that sometimes it may not be entirely clear from the content of that letter. Wouldn't it be prudent, in such cases, for the author to make it quite clear by using the words 'Support', 'Objection' or 'Comment' as a heading? And in the CC's case, perhaps some indication as to how the vote went? It would be even simpler if they just used the Planning Portal because they would then be required to tick one of the boxes - support, object or neutral.

stop being so sensible, Bob! Clear, quick and unambiguous, cost-effective...

[Porty]

It would be even simpler if they just used the Planning Portal because they would then be required to tick one of the boxes - support, object or neutral.

But that's no good if you want to object but don't have a mandate, is it?

Of the three options on offer "support" would have been closest to the PCC vote. Its difficult to imagine either the Chair or Secretary pushing that particular button.

Why on earth did PCC even bother to respond? it is a matter of little or no consequence to the community at large and we have a planning system to regulate. There were 4 representations made, one of those was deemed "not material" the other three hailed from under the same roof. It looks to be no more than a personal crusade

Does anyone know if Stephen Hawkins went along to the DSC meeting to speak against the appication on behalf of PCC?

[seashell]

Why did they bother to respond?
Personal reasons?

[Porty]

Although we are tallking about a much smaller scale application. The scenario is familiar and an apparent repeat of previous behaviour by some on on PCC.

Let me clarify. We attended at PCC meetings many, many times in the lead up to the previous application. We took on board comments and made alterations to the design to suit. At the final meeting at which people were invited to come forward, view drawings and CGIs and discuss the proposals we were left with the very clear impression that the vast majority of the people in the room were happy with the proposals. That was followed by a lengthy letter of objection from PCC berating many aspects of the scheme. At committee Councillor Hawkins read a 40 minute statement which he confirmed was on behalf of PCC denigrating the proposal. The committee members will have assumed that a statement from PCC reflects the views of the wider community which it purports to represent.
I cannot risk the same thing happening again.
.

There is no public record of Stephen Hawkins being asked to make representation on behalf of PCC. On numerous occassions I wrote to the Chair and asked him why so? All to no avail.

[Mark Cameron]

Is the issue that there is nobody else willing to step up to the plate and challenge this behaviour. Seems to me from what's being written (which I can't of course verify as being the truth) there are individuals on our CC who are clearly acting in their own self interest.

The CC should be making clear in it's minutes what the overall strength of feeling regards issues it's dicussing are so that there is no ambiguity. If the intention is to object to anything that shoudl be made clear at the meeting so everyone in attendance is aware of the stance to be taken on behalf of the community. I agree with an earlier suggestion (think it was Bob's) that said any letter should clearly state the way a vote has gone (eg 11 in favour vs 2 objections) and whether the PCCs letter is an objection/acceptance.

How can this be tabled for discussion?

I accept that it is difficult in a large community such as ours getting the views of the majority is not easy so agree the CC have a job on thier hands .

However those on the PCC have chosen to serve on behalf of our community and if they do not consult and cannot evidence the feelings of the community on matters raised I'd say they are no position to comment so should not be commenting at all.

[Grunk]

Hasn't this all been covered in another thread.

I seem to recall that the general feeling of some members of PCC was the the community is too stupid to know what's good for them.

The other issue was that it was difficult to get a representation from all the entire community, so it's probably best not to bother asking anyone (with the exception of Seanie, who has made efforts in the past to canvas opinion).

[Porty]

Hasn't this all been covered in another thread.

Sort of and in more than one thread. The issue here is not public consultation, although there happens to have been none.

There are two issues:

A) what is discussed and agreed at a PCC meeting (in this case there was a vote) is then misrepresented to a third party or parties, usually the planners.

B) PCC chose to comment/object on some High Street Change of Use applications and ignore others.

In both of the examples I used, the misrepresentations are made by indivduals who had submitted personal objections to the planning applications in question.

Diana Cairns objected to the planning application at 100 PHS and then had a hand in a letter of objection on behalf of PCC. A letter that entirely misrepresented the vote that took place, PCC clearly did not want to object.

In the case of BL Developments; Stephen Hawkins was a long time antagonist to BL developments he submitted a personal objection and then pitched up at a DSC meeting. He is entitled to do so as a Ward Councillor but he spoke for 40 Mins he claimed, on behalf of PCC. There is no record of him having being asked to do so. And what he said seemed to be seriously at odds with the discussion that had taken place.( **NB see below)

So it may seem like you've heard it before and the situations are very similar.

Sad thing is; the "innocent bystander" members of PCC dont appear to be overly concerned about being misrepresented and/or having an adverse effect on people's plans and aspirations. This type of thing has been going on for years and no sign of any change.

The buck stops with the Chair and he clearly supported the 100 PHS letter and was one of a handful of PCC members who knew privatley about the appearance of Stephen Hawkins.

(**NB- since SH appearance and apparemtly as a direct result, Ward Councillors are now restricted to 15 minutes, collectively.)

[Puerto bella]

Why arent you on the community council?

[seanie]

Not eligible.

[Bob Jefferson]

Geographically indisposed.

[Porty]

Yeah i was until i moved abode out of ward. PCc exists for local traders but unless they also reside in porty they cant be councillors. Why do you ask, thought you may have already known the answer.

[Puerto bella]

Nope, no idea where you stay. Assumed you stayed here.

[Porty]

Nope, no idea where you stay. Assumed you stayed here.

Ah, I thought you may have figured from the times I met you on the bus, no matter.

I could be making a comeback soon. Managed to get planning permission for a wee 1 bed bunglaow just off the High Street. Very modest but big enough for one of our local councillors to pitch up at a DSC meeting to object to it. Claimed he was there on behalf of "constituents" and the PCC. Which is strange, as there's no record of him ever being asked to do so. He managed to delay proceedings by suggesting a site visit by the committee. So all 12 of them took a minbus down one day and had a look. In the end it was passed unanimously.

It wasn't a very controversial application, from memory it attracted about 6 comments from the community, one of which was supportive. You may recognise the names of some of the objectors.

[Puerto bella]

In that case were you not skiving off early when we met you on the bus

[Porty]

Possibly - but I think i had moved house by then. Your wee lad was about 5- think.?