At the end of an arduous Planning Committee which went on well beyond the normal 10pm deadline the Chair, Sarah Marquis, made a statement about the controversial decision to hold two Planning Committee meetings this week. LINK
She said that as Chair she was disappointed that the Committee had been put in the position of deciding important applications, in a short space of time, that would deliver the new Wembley not just in the immediate future but for generations to come.
She said that the Committee had a duty to be fully informed and deliver fairness and justice through due process. Members needed to feel comfortable with the decisions that they made.
Given that, as well as the weighty meeting documentation, members had 385 supporting documents to read on line, she wanted to move that meeting due to be held on Wednesday should be deferred and moved to the next available Planning Committee meeting date.
Cllr Marquis' proposal seemed to throw the Committee members into a state of panic with Cllr Agha questioning whether such a discussion should be held in public - although only three of us had had the stamina to stay until the end of the meeting.
The Committee's legal adviser suggested that Wednesday's meeting go ahead as the date had been set and documentation provided but that the deferral motion be heard at the beginning.
Cllr Maurice suggested that the Committee meet in private immediately after tonight's meeting with the legal adviser to discuss the motion.
As far as I know that meeting may still be going on...
She said that as Chair she was disappointed that the Committee had been put in the position of deciding important applications, in a short space of time, that would deliver the new Wembley not just in the immediate future but for generations to come.
She said that the Committee had a duty to be fully informed and deliver fairness and justice through due process. Members needed to feel comfortable with the decisions that they made.
Given that, as well as the weighty meeting documentation, members had 385 supporting documents to read on line, she wanted to move that meeting due to be held on Wednesday should be deferred and moved to the next available Planning Committee meeting date.
Cllr Marquis' proposal seemed to throw the Committee members into a state of panic with Cllr Agha questioning whether such a discussion should be held in public - although only three of us had had the stamina to stay until the end of the meeting.
The Committee's legal adviser suggested that Wednesday's meeting go ahead as the date had been set and documentation provided but that the deferral motion be heard at the beginning.
Cllr Maurice suggested that the Committee meet in private immediately after tonight's meeting with the legal adviser to discuss the motion.
As far as I know that meeting may still be going on...
I like Sarah Marquis, she is bright and independently-minded. However, if she thinks that god-awful committee of donkeys that she chairs would read and absorb the documents provided, even if they had a year to do so, she is totally deluded.
ReplyDelete'Cllr Marquis' proposal seemed to throw the Committee members into a state of panic with Cllr Agha questioning whether such a discussion should be held in public.'
ReplyDeleteIs that the Cllr. Agha who a recent blog suggested was being lined-up by Cllr. Butt to replace the non-compliant Cllr. Marquis as Chair of Planning Committee?
Not wanting things to be discussed in public gives the impression that this councillor is not fully committed to "Openness", one of the seven key general conduct principles which Council Members are meant to uphold!
Philip.
'The Committee's legal adviser suggested that Wednesday's meeting go ahead as the date had been set and documentation provided but that the deferral motion be heard at the beginning.'
ReplyDeleteI know that it was late in the evening, but surely this legal advice lacked common sense! Why make everyone (committee members and officers, proposers of and objectors to the applications, and interested members of the public) turn up for a meeting on Wednesday evening, when that meeting could be adjourned. If the decision to adjourn had been made last night, everyone could have been aware in advance of whether the meeting would take place, or not.
Or perhaps the legal adviser (or some of the councillors who appear to have gone along with this advice) were "playing for time", so that the meeting will go ahead?
Who is it at the Civic Centre who is pushing for these planning applications to be "rubber stamped" without delay, and why?
Philip.