According to Your Thanet, Cllr Day seems to have got himself embroiled in a planning saga stretching as far back as the early 1980s. It has finally been concluded but left many people unhappy with the outcome.The building of a house in Birchington by Simon Day – who is vice-chairman of Thanet council’s planning committee – has sparked concerns about the committee’s impartiality.
The design of the building, in Berkeley Road, had upset neighbours, who protested that it was at odds with its surroundings – but it is the way the development has been handled that has proved to be most contentious.
Cllr Day was told by the planning committee that the building should have clouded windows overlooking neighbours’ back gardens to protect their privacy – but he neglected to do so and instead installed clear windows. The issue was addressed retrospectively at a planning meeting last week, where it was nodded through, but Bill Furness, chairman of the Liberal Democrat group in Birchington, is just one of several people to have contacted this Your Thanet about the matter. He said: “Cllr Simon Day seems to be able to ignore planning regulations. What has been built is totally out of keeping with the existing bungalows in the road. A lot of people are upset about this.”
In my view, the Council has acted properly in this matter. It is unfortunately not unusual for developers to act in this way and if caught, seek retrospective planning consent. The officers and committee then have to consider the application on its merits. It would appear that this was done.
My concern is the problem this will cause because Cllr Day is Vice Chair of the Planning Committee. It will be that much more difficult now for the Council to encourage developers to stick to the rules and conditions imposed by the committee, when the committee Vice Chair doesnt feel the need!
I think perhaps Cllr Gregory, the Chair of the Committee should have a word in his ear.
Stella Artwat
7 hours ago
18 comments:
It wasn't just Your Thanet that has been asking questions but Thanet Star and Thanet Strife have also been talking about it.
However Cllr Day has indeed set a poor example and I would suggest that he may have brought his office and indeed all of planning into disrepute.
I don't know the guy but I do not like what I have read about him nor some of the things I have been told by some of the people of Thanet.
There's no need for him to resign...as long as he demolishes his home!
The basic question about this whole matter was how a TDC Planning Officer was able to completely distort a report from an Independent Planning Inspector who dismissed the appeal by Cllr Day on the previous application. Our poor Councillors other than the Cabinet and Cllr Day can only act on what they are told by Officers. What have they not been told is the crucial issue in the 'Day Monstrosity' at Birchington and more importantly, CGP's Application (3 Phases not 1) that will come to full Council in October. If I were a Councillor I would be busy over the next few weeks finding out the truth about'Gateway' and more of what has been 'promised' by Cabinet and Chief Brian White to CGP since 2006!
Should a builder and developer be sitting on the planning committee let alone as vice chair. Seems very wrong. Can\did planning officers view an application objectively when they are aware that the applicant is a member of the committee. I know they should but can they and did they. It would seem not.
One, he shouldnt have to resign since he hasnt actually done anything wrong. Thanet Strife admitted so. The problem was of disclosure by officers, not of Cllr Day who took no part in the process through his role as Cllr. Cllr Iris Johnston made a point in the press about ward councillors and representation. As Ive said on other threads, Cllr Latchford is the other Ward Councillor, so representation wasnt lost.
Second, there shouldnt be a need to demolish the house as long as the house matches the approved plans.
As for whether builders etc should even be allowed onto the committee, its debatable. If the respective Cllrs declare an interest and withdraw as per the rules when applicable, there shouldnt be a problem.
When some of the residents contacted their other councillor, Cllr. Latchford, they were told, apparently, he was too busy. If that's true it's a disgrace that he wasn't prepared even to meet them.
Perhaps, James, you could ask him yourself?
I was at this meeting, and if I had been chairing it would have asked cllr mrs J what her interest was as it was not her ward! Seems the chair missed a chance of getting her before the standards board
Cllr Roger Latchford O.B.E.was the other ward Councillor REFUSED to assist or give any help to those in HIS ward that asked for his help
even after being asked to by Conservative M.P.Roger Gale this is probably why Iris Johnston tried to help.
Parish Councillor Jack Cohen (Independent)assisted the residents so did LibDems Bill Furness,the next step is the Ombudsman to look at the whole case,seems that once Day was elected as the ward councillor the planning permission was given but then again this is probably sheer coincidence,so no harm done.
But Iris is well known as the councillor from hell who picks up all the cases that others will not, cos it might get her picture in the paper, even if that drives their circulation ever downwards. Why cant she get a UK passport and then emmigrate
NO
If there were more councillors like Iris Johnston Thanet would be a much better place.
Should Day resign? He should certainly resign from the Planning Committee. There has been a conflict of interest. Even if dealings have been open and above board (which I doubt looking at all the evidence) there would always be a stench about any developer having a seat on planning and seeking to have their own applications approved. Even if all proceedures are followed correctly, can friends\colleagues on the committee be relied on to judge such application impartially?
The Ombudsman found nothing wrong. Looking at the comment above, representation did exist from neighbouring Councillors through Jack Cohen and Bill Furness. In that case the point about lack of representation has no basis.
As has been said before, Cllrs with conflicts of interest such as Cllr Days interest as applicant, must state their conflict and withdraw from the meeting if they consider their interest to be prejudicial. In this case he took no part in the decision over the application because he was prejudiced. The Planning Committee meetings and Full Council meetings were in public, so anyone could have followed the application in the Council Chamber.
Whilst Councillor Jack Cohen tried to help,it is out of his ward and Councillor Roger Latchford the other district ward Councillor refused to help and told Councillor
Jack Cohen previously on another case that it was not in his(Cohens) ward.
I believe that Bill Furness is NOT a ward councillor but The Chairman of the local Liberal Democrats and possibly their prospective parliamentary candidate according to press reports he has been involved in trying to solve a number of other problems in Thanet
It just looks funny how this planning was refused time after time until Simon Day was elected to the Council and Vice chair of planning.
Should he resign? that is up to his concious and if he thinks that
in the interest of party unity and the councils reputation he should, it just looks bad and a little naive on his part.
What it seems to boil down to is the fact that the case officer's report to planning committee was skewed in favour of the applicant. The reason for this cannot be assertained, but certainly the Planning Inspectors report 2005 was quoted completely out of context to the extent that the middle of a sentence was removed. The Committee can only rely on information supplied and if that information is in any way biased it will affect the outcome. The more recent application again was skewed in favour of the applicant with photos supplied showing the building out of context with the surroundings and a letter of concern from the Parish Council omitted. As Thanet Strife has reported "The worry is not what our Councillors are told but what they are not told".
According to "Martin" it boils down to the officers incompetance ?
Thanet councils planning committee were it seems not given the full facts and information from their own officers,so which council officer actually put these forward?
and why did Councillor Simon Day not correcect the information, I know it was not in his interest to do so but what about the constituants that were going to be affected or did'nt they matter.
I notice in todays paper he is going to have a sunken garden at the rear,at least the neighbours will not see him enjoying his tipple in the garden,yet he can now overlook his neighbours because he fitted plain glass instead of the opaque glass that he originaly was instructed to by the planning department,naughty
boy ! never mind now that his political friends and colleagues on the planning department
has given him retrospective planning permission,this will now open the door for all developers to try it on now.
Perhaps and if a new Council Leader takes over in the next few weeks as rumoured amongst the Conservative clan, he will make a few changes, a new broom etc.
Where will Councillor Day park all the vehicles and plant that dots around his present palace sorry place.? on the drive? on the road?
well we will have to wait to see if he has made alternative arrangements for these.
With the "Chinagate" fiasco rearing its ugly head and the question who owns what land who will be building it, who will make financial gains.the planning committee is going to have an even bigger problem than with the "Court House"
So 04 September, 2008 20:46
he is going to have a sunken garden at the back? - hope he has got small garden furniture because he only has a meter between his house and the boundary fence behind him.
Well, It will be big enough to entertain the Chairman of planning and all his friends for Champagne and caviar when he has a house warming party.
None of this changes the fact that here is a councillor that set a very poor example for others to follow. How can the council now hope to enforce planning rules when a councillor and planning committee member flouted the rules? It has undermined the councils very status as a valid planning authority.
Post a Comment