A post on the Harrow Hill Trust website devoted to resisting Harrow School's plan to build on Metropolitan Open Land LINK suggests it is not only the Brent Planning Department which has issues around due process.
The Harrow Planning Committeee hearing of the school's application had been deferred when a report was withdrawn LINK
Harrow School recently lost at a Planning Inspectorate hearing over plans to re-route two footpaths. LINK
This is the Trust's post:
Harrow School recently lost at a Planning Inspectorate hearing over plans to re-route two footpaths. LINK
This is the Trust's post:
CONSULTATION – GENUINE OR JUST A TICK BOX EXERCISE?
A letter dated 27 April 2017, after the recent planning meeting and newly posted on the planning portal under application P/1940/16, is from Matthew Paterson planning adviser to Harrow School, which states the following.We are pleased to note that the re-consultation period proposed by the Council will not impact upon our application being determined at the May Planning Committee.
It is reasonable to assume that Mr Patterson is accurate and knows the timetable for procedures for planning meetings. This is due to the fact that for over 5 years until October 2014 he was Head of Planning Policy for Harrow Borough and at the recent meeting he and his client met with the Chair of the Planning Committee.
The consultation period runs for 21 days from 28th April which is until 19th May 2017. The May Planning Committee is set for 24th May 2017 and the planning officer’s report has to be circulated and published 7 days earlier, i.e. on Wednesday 17th May. This is of course 2 days before the consultation period has even ended, let alone allowing for the planning officer’s report to incorporate all possible responses from the consultation.
There have been numerous and consistent complaints about the ‘consultation’ provided for this planning application, including poor notification, no sysem of recording of verbal feedfack, no open floor two way question and answer sessions, misrepresentation of feedback provided, missing and misleading information provided, in fact too many to go into in this short post. Perhaps this is another clear indication of what is really going on?
LOL - a planning officer's report with recommendation on an application to be published days before a public consultation ends... Never mind democracy, eh, let alone accountability. As for Matthew Paterson's move from public to private - an interesting variation on revolving doors...?
ReplyDelete