In the article John makes the following statement "PAS is represented on Portobello Community Council and monitors and responds to new planning applications on its behalf." - which is not true.
I have written to John and asked him to publish a correction in the Reporter to explain to readers that the organisations can take quite different stances on the same planning matter. The new high school being a good example; PAS objected to a school in the park and PCC did not. Instead they communicated the diversity of views expressed by their commitee, as they are duty bound to do.
PCC have a constitution, in common with other community councils and it simply doesn't allow a third party, in this case PAS, to assume responsibilty for monitoring and responding to planning matters on its behalf.
One of the risks of delegating in this manner is that the decison and quality of response to applications could inadvertently fall into the hands of one individual or a small group of strong-minded individuals. A group that cannot possibly hope to reflect the cross community views of a 30 member community council.
As things stand at present, John is taking advice from the city council and is resisting publishing any correction. Indeed he is actively defending the statement on the basis that; whatever process has been put in place, has been around for more than 12 years. Which IMHO is neither good enough nor compliant with the constitution.
I'm happy to post the correspondence if anyone would like to be kept informed?
(Perhaps someone with the necc skills could publish the article here)Statistics: Posted by Porty — 30 Oct 2009, 23:49
]]>