Cllr. Costello wrote at his site: http://wwwcolmcostello.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/planning-in-ealing-going-down-hill-fast.html"Planning in Ealing going down hill fast" The leader of the Council has this week really shown his true colours. I always had my doubts about him, but this week it has become more obvious than ever that he cares about one thing only, his own position. When I first became a Councillor in 2006, at our first Full Council meeting he made a speech that was totally lacking in grace and was quiet insulting to new comers like me. His main point was that he expected by-elections because most of us didn't expect to win and wouldn't put the work in. When you look at the Labour group in Council now, their attendance record at meetings is appalling, they don't put the work in and when they do attend the meetings, their contributions are poor. See here. Anyone who attended this weeks planning committee meeting and listened to the debates would I am sure agree. This was especially true of the debate on the Oaks development. I was never prouder to be a member of the Conservative group in my short political life of seven years. Cllrs Potts, Reen, Popham and Brooks all presented their case brilliantly, constantly referring to planning policies, whether they be Council policies or the London plan or the National Planning policy Framework. I am the least experienced member of our group on planning, but I can tell you, I am learning fast in that group. Cllrs Popham and Potts are former chairs of the planning committee and you only have to listen to Cllrs Brooks and Reen to realise they know their stuff. Cllr Jon Ball of the Liberal Democrat too is an experienced member of planning, and whilst I often find myself on the opposite side of the argument with him, on this we were in agreement. They demolished the arguments in favour of this development. I like to think that I contributed to the case against too. Anyone who was in favour of the development could not be cross with us as we made our case professionally and competently. We read the report, the emails and visited the site. The same cannot be said of the Labour members on the Committee. The absolute vast majority of the public who attended were opposed to the plans, and left the meeting in a rage after it was voted through. They were spitting fire and had good reason to be. The arguments made by the Labour Councillors on the Committee did not as far as I could see or hear refer to our planning policies, to the London Plan and certainly didn't mention the National Planning Policy Framework even once. It was almost like a boxing match where one opponent hammers the living daylights out of the other, but the one getting the hiding knows he will get the result, whatever happens in the fight , so doesn't even try. The Labour Councillors on the Committee did not even try to convince us this application was worth voting for. One of them who didn't attend the site visit, didn't even speak during the two hour long debate, but still stuck her hand up to vote in favour. How can you sit through two hours of debate and say nothing. I wonder if she even read the report. On our last planning training session we discussed exactly this sort of thing. If you vote, especially on contentious applications, you should give an indication during the discussion what your thoughts were and why you might vote for or against the application so residents in the Gallery will at least know why you voted the way you voted. You might be wondering why I mentioned the leader of the Council at the beginning of this piece. It all comes back to him. Earlier in the year we know that there was an attempted coup in the Labour group. As Bell is still the leader, you already know the result of that particular row. How did this affect the planning committee? Well the former chair, Cllr Ray Wall was booted out, so was his wife, Cllrs Mrs Lauren Wall and so was their friend Cllr Shital Manro. I have locked horns with all three of them many times over the years, but would never deny that they were good at planning. We will never know how they would have voted last night, but I can tell you that if they were in favour, they would have spoken far more convincingly than the Labour representation on the committee last night, or at least tried. They would have read the report, attended the site visit and read the emails from objectors. Bell threw his three best planning committee members off the committee as a punishment for their part in the attempted coup and replaced them with some of the members who spoke so badly last night. Would you remove your three best planning committee members from probably the most important committee in the Council if you were the leader of the Council. Would you set up a secret meeting on behalf of one of your politician friends with the director of Built Environment and then not charge them for this service when the rest of the Council tax paying residents have to pay, if you were leader of the Council. Would you spend 3-5 minutes in a speech at a full Council meeting talking up the regeneration of this site the night before the planning committee meeting where your own councillors will be making that decision if you were the leader of the Council. Would you Tweet that the local MP should not be opposed to Waitrose coming to this site two days before the same planning committee meeting sat to decide this application if you were the leader of the Council. You would if you didn't care about planning in the borough that you led. Cllr Julian Bell has stripped the planning process in Ealing of the little bit of trust or respect that existed before he took over as leader of the council.Residents need to know they can trust the Council to get planning right, especially the big decisions. After last night, they now know that they can't and they have Cllr Julian Bell to thank for that. Settling scores with political opponents in his own group is a lot more important to him than anything the residents of Acton need or the residents in the rest of the borough will ever need. He has done what he has to do to hold on to his position, because that is his number one priority. Posted by Colm Costello at 15:35 Email ThisBlogThis! Share to TwitterShare to Facebook1 comment:The following is my own posting in comment:Victor Mishiku 18 October 2013 19:11Thank you for your comment.The "Southall Block Vote" is already interfering with Ealing's finest residential estate (whose owner, Edward Wood Esq, was a benefactor to the Ealing Board) but not content with that, they are now spreading their cancerous tentacles into Acton.The performance of the majority of the Southall Councillors is very predictable. After having little tangible to say, they stick up their hands in political unison.Examine the planning advice Cllr. Swarn Kang has dispensed recently. Cllr. Kang told Ealing objectors in a double Conservation Area case that their "problem" is that they live in a Conservation Area. On 4th September, Cllr. Kang advised the 450 odd objectors that they would eventually "get used" to having all sorts of backgarden buildings popping up all over the place - presumably, this is what happens in the part of the Borough about which former Planning Chair(man) Labour Cllr. Madhav Patil once said: "Anyone who applies for planning permission in Southall is considered a fool".On Wednesday (16th October), Cllr. Kang undermined the 50% Affordable Housing Provision adopted by Ealing Council which the Acton developers had failed to even meet half of in their scheme, saying it would be undesirable as it would cause "bad behaviour". So much for "Affordable" housing! Cllr. Bell, is it seems at the mercy of Southall - we have a Southall Planning Chair(man), Southall Mayor, Southall GLA Member (who can command the immediate presence of Cllr. Bell and the Director of the Environment Group to one of his 8 properties in Castlebar Road to assist him in the butchery of that 128 year-old Victorian House which is on covenanted land and in a Conservation Area) and a Southall MP who employs him.Despite any pressure from Cllr. Bell and/or the Southall Block, the conduct of Cllr. Kate Crawford is inexcusable. After leaving it to non-Acton Councillors to try to protect the hundreds of objectors (including her own son the Acton Central Ward Councillor) and after disregarding the plea from her colleague Cllr. Abdullah Gulaid that Committee Members should NOT vote politically, she too stuck her hand up in the most unforgivable betrayal of not only Acton residents but also of the former Labour Leader Cllr. John Cudmore's Manifesto Pledge when he promised:“Council planners will work closely with local communities..” “New buildings must add to the character of the area not destroy it.” “Labour is committed to maintaining existing conservation areas and to introducing new ones with local community support.”“Planning decisions must take account of the feelings of local people.”If it is correct that Cllr.Kate Crawford was threatened by the Council with "de-selection", then she should do the honourable thing and state so publicly. The resolution should be revoked and those guilty of political interference brought before the Standards Committee and possibly also the Metropolitan Police.V.Mishiku 18/10/13.
Victor Mishiku ● 4714d