The Planning Committee

On Wednesday 17th March Gateshead Ccouncil's Planning Committee met. On the agenda was the demolition of 154 homes in the Bensham area. This is part of the overall 440 demolitions and part of the consultant's recommendation that 1,200 demolitions should take place.

The undemocratic nature of demolition was highlighted by the scope of the Planning Committee's discussion. They could only discuss the method of demolition and not demolition as a policy. So residents could not discuss if their home was going to be bulldozed just which bulldozer they had a particular preference for. Those residents who wanted to object to demolition in principle were sidelined.

The theory of the committee is that councillors are there as the democratic bulwark to scrutinise the work and decisions of officers and, if necessary, to make them think again. However Gateshead Council has been run by one party for so long that most councillors believe they are in a sort of partnership with the officers carrying out mutual back scratching and admiration. The rubber stamp of officer led local government is alive and well in Gateshead Council. In fact the councillors that didn't even bother to turn up were only marginally less active than those that were present.

Nevertheless, despite its flaws, this was one of the few times that actual residents were allowed to speak directly to the council.

Objections were answered by officers with updated meeting papers. Three speakers on behalf of the residents were allowed. There was the question of whether an Environmental Impact Asssessment was needed, a question of the process of demolition in streets with families and young children and a graphic description of living with demolition by a resident. Due to the ristrictive nature of the application process only allowing the narrow question of "methods of demoition" the meeting was largely a pro-forma process in which the ability of the people facing losing their homes were marginalised. The chances of ordinary people engaging with largely professional politicians is remote.

One councillor asked about the EIA but his question was brushed aside by a legal officer whose long rambling answer was close to a foreign language and bore little relationship to the question. Almost no-one understood what she was saying and even she was forced to admit that her long and rambling answer was a specialist part of the law. She was basically arguing that if the legal eagles at the council really thought an EIA was necessary they would have gone ahead with a full planning application rather than using the "prior approvals" process. As usual the legal department provided no written formal opinion thus avoiding any embarrassment if Gateshead Council was taken to court.

Another councillor asked about the conflict of interest where the applicant was Gateshead Council, the EIA Screening Opinion was done by Gateshead Council and then Gateshead Council had to approve the application. This councillor was concerned about the independence of the procedure and that the public would see a conflict of interest. If the councillor had read this blog then she would know that the public are annoyed by the process in which planning seems self approval rather than proper scrutiny. At the meeting the official from the planning department assured the meeting that wearing multiple hats was quite normal and when acting as the planning authority they can be entirely independent of when they act as an applicant.

The general public may not be so sure about this "independence" when faced with a JCB knocking down their home.

The committee did not address the health and safety issues of demolishing one side of a street with families living a few feet away at the other side of the street. Dangerous substances such as asbestos were not discussed and the suggestion of even inconvenience was brushed aside by officials. So much for caring about the health and safety of the public.

Councillor Bob Goldsworthy, a leadership loyalist, congradulated the officers of the council for their report and fine work and moved acceptance of the scheme. Even the officials looked embarrassed at the obvious brown nosing by someone who is supposed to be holding them to account. Goldsworthy 's notes his interests as "housing" on the council website. He has now voted to have 154 fewer houses in the ward next to his own.