A profanity filter is employed. Please use a valid e-mail with your message and a valid name if at all possible. Please keep to the posters subject.
RICHMOND WATCHDOG OPEN FORUM
Go to Top  |  New Topic  |  Go to Topic  |  Search 
 Subject: RE: The Implications.
 
Author: Cllr Laurence Mann
Date:   11/3/2001 10:05 pm WEDT
Public Inquiries are not lotteries, but like court cases, their outcome is often dependent on one person's appraisal of the facts.

I don't think that the notes of this so called "secret" meeting were hidden. Tony Arbour had no difficulty obtaining them. It wasn't a public meeting, but that makes little difference.

If you look at what happened, the planning agreement which had been negotiated was going pear shaped and a view had to be made whether to defend the appeal or renegotiate the agreement. That's an important decision. Should it have been done simply by officers? No. There should have been some member input. So there was. Any agreement reached then had to go to a proper committee for decision. Did it? Yes.

The only difference between 1989 and now is that councillors who took part in the discussion about whether to go for renegotiation might have been unwise to participate in the final decision. However that view is not one which would be shared in other authorities even today.

That's not corruption, just the way things were done then. It would not have occured to officers or councillors that those involved in the so called "secret" meeting shouldn't take part in the planning decision. You will find senior planning councillors meeting with developers in other boroughs, "without prejudice" to their later decisions, and this is not regarded as corrupt, just a different way of doing things. I think it is dangerous, but it still goes on.

The council was not selling a permission, simply finding a way to compensate the public for a loss of amenity. Payments are obtained routinely by this and other councils for:

Affordable housing (although we now try to get it on site);
Education provision
Traffic schemes.
Etc.

Are these selling permissions?




Reply To This Message
 Previous Message  |  Next Message

 Topics Author  Date      
 Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 5:35 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 7:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 10:45 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 11:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 11:32 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:54 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:56 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Voter 11/1/2001 1:18 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 In need of more help 11/1/2001 2:58 pm WEDT
 STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 J. Watley 11/2/2001 0:10 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/2/2001 11:59 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 12:21 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Knowledgeable 11/2/2001 1:20 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 3:31 pm WEDT
 Still Waiting.   new  
 R H 2/24/2002 6:36 pm WEDT
 RE: Still Waiting.   new  
 Laurence Mann 2/25/2002 1:08 pm WEDT
 Minutes   new  
 R H 2/25/2002 2:07 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/2/2001 8:46 pm WEDT
 The Implications.   new  
 R H 11/3/2001 2:49 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.    
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/3/2001 10:05 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 RichardMeacock 11/4/2001 8:41 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:56 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:43 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:46 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/5/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/5/2001 7:55 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 11:27 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:38 am WEDT
 Statistics.   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 3:55 pm WEDT
 RE: Statistics.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/9/2001 9:09 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:05 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 9:03 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Public Service Information 11/2/2001 8:37 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Knightsbridge LET Staff member 11/3/2001 10:23 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:36 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:27 am WEDT
 Purpose?   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 3:23 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 3:14 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 4:47 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 8:07 pm WEDT
 Previous Topic  |  Next Topic
 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:  
 Your Email:  
 Subject:  
  Submission Validation Question: What is 51 + 37? *  
* indicates required field
     

Sexist, Racist, Rude or unnecessary messages will be removed. Tolerance to anonymous messages will be at the discretion of the administration body. Anyone who insults the owner of this forum will be barred for life. No adverts permitted.