Skip to main content

Agenda item

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

 

Note:   A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Minutes:

Referring to item 12 on the agenda (the Constitution) Mr N Quinn said that having a limit of only one person being able to speak in objection of an application appears biased towards the applicant since there is normally only one applicant but tend to be many objectors. Mr Quin went on to raise the following points and questions:

 

“If it is merely a matter of time, I believe that most objectors would prefer that Councillors spend as much time as is needed to discuss all aspects of an application. Saving a Council 10 minutes is a poor price to pay against the impact that some decisions can have on a person’s life.  Would this Committee please raise the number of objectors that can speak during an application?

 

The public are often not consulted about applications prior to submission and have little time to put their case in writing.  Access to information is difficult for some without computers or bus services.  The planning files which are supposed to be accessible on line are often out of date or incomplete. Officers are supposed to record meetings, phone conversations and advice but don’t always do this.

 

Objectors tend to be normal people who see things in a way that normal people do. They are not versed in Planning Law and have not had the specialist training those officers and Members have. When they make objections, they write what they feel. Once they do, the officer summarises the lovingly crafted points into a number of short bullet points in no particular order or leaves their objections out altogether ‘because they are not valid planning points’. There is currently no feedback on letters of objection. Could the system be changed to offer more support for this who are obviously concerned but whose objection is invalid?

 

It is difficult to choose who should speak and what they say since everybody believes that their objection is the most important. Even a small application can create a large number of objectors. I have recently spoken to Committee as an objector spokesperson representing more than 50 households because the proposed development is on a public amenity area located in the middle of a housing estate and everybody is concerned about it.  It was easy for us to talk and discuss but more scattered objectors, or where there is animosity, could have great difficulty in agreeing on one person to talk.  Could the system be changed where there was a disagreement on who should speak?

 

Objectors tend to be normal people, unused to the ways of Council Committees and procedures. We are generally not used to public speaking.  There is currently a restriction of only 3 minutes in which to make the case for everybody.  This places a lot of pressure on the individual concerned.  It is too short a time to cover what may be large number of objector points so the speaker may have to talk so fast as to sound like the terms and conditions people on adverts. This is not good for either the speaker or the Committee. Would this Committee consider a requirement to offer support to objectors to help them with their presentation and/or do it for them?

 

There is no written record in the Minutes of the verbal presentations made during the consideration of an application.  The rigid order of speaking and the inability to respond to statements is a problem as well.  Please consider that there may be statements made in speeches which may be untrue and which nobody can correct because they have already spoken and are not allowed to. Members may well make decisions based on incorrect information.  Can this Committee make some provision to allow for the challenge of a verbal statement made during the consideration of an application?”

 

The Chairman informed Mr Quinn that his questions would be considered with the agenda item.