• HAVING been a member of the planning committee for more than six years, I appreciate how difficult it could be for members of the public to attend meetings, to listen to officers’ presentations, to make public representations to the committee itself.

I know how frustrating it could be at the end of this process, to see the committee reject those objections and approve the application.

I appreciate that it could be easier then to blame the chair, (It’s time for a new chair of the planning committee, August 9), or the lack of engagement by members, or the section 106 money, or the “rigged system” (yes, we see all these allegations quite often).

The truth is that planning applications must be assessed against national and local legislation, not simply by the number of objections or the “will of the local people”.

Camden’s planning department has some of the best officers in the country, the council has some of the most open and inclusive engagement policies (with development forums and opportunities for everyone to engage since an early stage, to submit written objections and to speak at the committee meeting, unlike some of the neighbouring boroughs).

Councillors receive specific training, read their papers, listen to the deputations and scrutinise thoroughly the officer’ recommendations. Even if most rejections happen (unnoticed) before the committee stage, the committee still turn down a fair number of applications every year.

In my experience, the chair allows always an open and long debate (sometimes even too long), and proper scrutiny.

The recently approved voting system on the rejection of an application – which has been used the first time on the management plan of 100 Avenue Road, and again at the last committee when we turned down an application by a major landowner in Covent Garden – allows a further moment of discussion and makes stronger the reasons for rejection in case of appeal.

The problem is that, in assessing planning applications, councillors are bound by a national legislation which is increasingly in favour of development and, despite changes to our local planning policies (that is, the recently approved regulation which, following several representations from local residents, introduces stricter controls on new basements), we cannot simply reject an application because of the high number of objections.

We need to have good planning reasons. The risk otherwise is that the decision, no matter how strong is the support of local residents, will be overturned, like in the case of the planning application of 100 Avenue Road (which was then permitted by the Tory secretary of state Greg Clark against Camden’s refusal).

With this in mind, possibly it would be more useful for Paul Braithwaite, Edie Raff (It is time for a change of chair of Camden’s Planning Committee, August 16), and others, rather than blaming the chair, to join the council in calling for changes to planning rules nationally.

CLLR LAZZARO PIETRAGNOLI
Labour, Camden Town
Primrose Hill ward