New work to sort out Bath council core strategy blueprint

“Marty1, an excellent post. I would like to see this forming the basis of a front page article in the Chronicle highlighting how 65 worthy individuals with high ideals can continuously and thoroughly demonstrate their refusal to comprehend the issues and recommend totally inappropriate policies whilst pathetically attacking others for wasting public money because they appeal against totally unjustified decisions or pursue alternative routes. Publishing your post would give Paul Crossley the right to reply and i am sending a copy to my councillor asking for his comment.

I would also like to see the number of councillors halved; there are so many that decision making of necessity is centralised in the hands of the few and any dissent is submerged by the morass of the apathetic or ignorant (often because they are kept deliberately ignorant) usually putting party loyalty first.

You have highlighted the winners and the cost to residents; there are also other losers as the govt. inspector highlights, in particular those seeking somewhere to live.”

“If you are looking for accountability you have to look no further than the councillors, not the officers...The councillors were clearly advised to vote for a contingency for housing numbers AND advised of the risks if they did not follow the advice given (it is all in the public papers from 2011 cabinet - not sure how to post the link)...the risk assessment clearly set out that the core strategy would in all likelihood be found unsound, that B&NES would not have a policy position, that inappropriate housing and other development schemes would not sustain being refused and that it would increase the liklihood of appeals being lost. And yet after all this advice it was the councillors who voted not to go with the contingency.

Now lets look at what has happened since...Oh yes, core strategy suspended, planning applications being submitted in unsuitable locations, officers struggling to defend appeals, appeals being allowed....and COSTS being awarded to developers. And now it is left to the officers to try and get the councillors out of this mess with very little time to do it - what an unenviable task (and it is somewhat ironic that it is the officers who get all the flack not the councillors).

What i find the most frustrating - particularly with appeal cost decisions - is the fact that in the face of the clear evidence presented to them councillors still chose to ignore the advice they are given by their officers and refuse applications that they are told they cannot defend (due to the situation they have left the council in viz the core strategy) and risk costs on...and once the costs are awarded it is the council - and therefore the taxpayer - who picks up the tab and is lining the pocket of the developers!! How on earth can they justify this??? (you've only got to look at the recent decisions at whitchurch and farmborough and the same is likely to happen in clutton, I hate to think how much money is being wasted). If the councillors were a board of directors voting away company assets they would be fired, end of...so where is the backbone at the top of the council to pull these people into line????

Would it really be too much to ask for an admission of error and perhaps an apology from a councillor?????

I really hope that they (the councillors) can finally listen to the advice they are being given, let the staff get on with the work they are being tasked with and stop wasting everyones time and money - it may not be what they want but it is what is being forced on them by central govenment so its time they suck it up, bite the bullet and move this process forward.

Rant over!”

“Different planet. The same results in the private sector would mean rolling heads, not second chances.

So why not the same accountability with what are at least equally precious public funds? Does anyone have an answer that won't lead to more waste?”

“I think the clue as to why things go awry is in the first sentence of the article: "Council officers are working as fast as possible to re-examine the authority's planning blueprint ..."
More Haste Less Speed?”

“Does this mean that Bath City Council dont have a clue? - surely not.”

“There needs to be a balance here - having got it wrong first time round, the pressing need to protect certain areas from development by completing the strategy is understandable. However clearly if the lack of housing land is to be addressed within the strategy, its going to mean other areas being added as potential development sites. Its pretty clear the consultation on this aspect is going to be rushed which may be unfair to those affected and as rushed decisions may end up being wrong.”

“Gosh, imagine what that £100,000 could have been spent on if they'd got it right first time round. Is anybody accountable for this?! I do wish people would stop playing so fast and lose with our council tax contributions...”