The best way to plan the future?

On Wednesday I appeared at the newly named Planning Committee (formerly Development) in order to speak against the proposed plans at the Armorex site in Lavenham.  I am afraid that I do not think that the change of name has done much to improve the quality of the committee’s decision making.

It is just my opinion of course, but I do not think that one of the rulings made by the committee on the first three applications before them was correct. I left in despair before the fourth and final, decision was made, but I do hope that members found their form and came to the right conclusion.

In the first case, the Committee threw out plans for a solar panel plant in Tattingstone.  I have no idea about the merits of this case, and, like many others, I am dubious about such development where it damages the landscape or biodiversity.  However, I understand that the reasons for going against the officer’s recommendation were pretty flimsy.

The Committee went on to reject plans for housing on the former Fleetwood Caravan site in Long Melford.  We arrived at the point when members were struggling with officers to find a good reason for their rejection of the scheme.  This is generally a sign that a decision will be overturned on appeal, and indeed, I predict that this will be the fate of both this application and the one that went before it.

As far as the Armorex site in Lavenham is concerned, the committee voted to allow the application by a majority of  7 votes to 6.   I do feel that had the whole committee listened carefully to the arguments, and taken a little more time to debate them, a different conclusion would have been reached.  ( I have added a temporary page above on which I have included my contribution to the debate labelled ‘Armorex’ so that those amongst you who are interested in such matters can judge for yourselves.)

So what went wrong?   Were members too swayed by sentiment, the input of celebrity, or the presence in the chamber of angry residents?  In the case of the third application were the committee simply too tired to actually address the issues presented to them properly?  Or having already gone against the officer’s recommendation twice, were they nervous about doing so for a third time?   

Who knows?  I must however question the wisdom of asking the committee to resolve three controversial and complex applications in one day.  By the time they reached the Lavenham application we were well into the post prandial ‘graveyard slot’, and with the best will in the world concentration and enthusiasm levels of all but the most seasoned committee men must have been quite low.

All this begs the question as to whether this is a sensible way to resolve planning issues in the present day.  As things stand neither central government nor local residents are satisfied by the outcomes.  The former would like to see more growth and more development, the latter feel, often quite rightly, that their voices are not heard.

I look forward to seeing the outcome of the appeals, deplore the cost of these to the council taxpayer and very much regret the outcome of the Lavenham application.