• WHATEVER the legal advice from the borough solicitor with regard to moving seamlessly between a high-powered post in Camden cabinet and an international planning consultancy, many residents will view this state of affairs as a reprehensible and amoral situation indicative of moral malaise (Politician: Why I took job with planning firm, October 5).

Regeneration schemes, including the controversial Community Investment Programme, as well as application for large-scale private developments cross the desk of a single member of the cabinet.

This very same single member of the cabinet also has access to all of the borough’s putative plans, rubs shoulders with other key stakeholders in the development world including the land-hungry HS2 supersonic bulldozer.

Furthermore the same single member heads up the planning department where decisions involving huge impacts to local communities are taken.

As such that single member is in pole position to recommend changes in planning policy while simultaneously wearing a regeneration hat and pushing hard for proposals put forward by this department to be agreed by the planning committee!

Whenever this convoluted interests issue has been raised in public we have been told that there is a Chinese wall between the council (who have taken on the role of developer of CIP schemes) and the planning department, ensuring a clear separation and the policy and planning guidance laid down to for public protection is adhered to.

Pardon me for being sceptical but how is this possible?

Even assuming squeaky-clean modus operandi between departments (which I do not assume), how can an individual, however honest and trustworthy, (post the Somers Town CIP trust is all but absent) manage both the functions of build, build, build regeneration as well as check, check, check scrutiny of a functioning planning department?

One cannot unremember facts gleaned along the way in one role while performing another. This is taking schizophrenia to new levels. It does not take a genius to see that the very nature of a combined portfolio brings up continual conflicts of interest.

Maybe Camden do think the impossible can be achieved.

The public, nonetheless, are entitled to not only expect justice will be done when decisions involving vast sums of public money and assets are involved, but crucially that “justice is seen to be done”.

This cannot happen with the joint portfolio as is. If Camden Council wants any credibility at all in its decision-making it needs to separate regeneration (including related to HS2) from planning as a matter of urgency.

FRAN HERON
Chair, Camden Town
District Management Committee