• MY August 9 letter (It’s time for a new chair of the planning committee) criticising the way that Camden’s planning committee is being chaired seems to have hit a chord, judging by the letters the New Journal published in response last week.

I decided to attend the committee on August 16 to check whether I had perhaps been unfairly critical of the chair. I had not. I’d add that I had no vested interest in any of the night’s applications, other than to observe process.

The central item on the agenda was an application for three adjoining buildings in the charming Neal Street, Covent Garden. The presentation by officers and its consideration by councillors took 80 minutes. This included an erudite five-minute deputation from a representative of all the three opposing local community conservation bodies.

The application was (rightly) refused by eight of the 10 councillors who voted. At that point things began to unravel.

In the past, in similar circumstances, procedure was to summarily conclude that the application failed to “preserve or enhance the conservation area”, was “over-massed” and the design of the corner building was not fitting – and then move on. The rejection’s wording was delegated to officers to prepare, to reflect the councillors’ discussion, for subsequent endorsement at the next meeting.

But there’s a new experimental twist to Camden’s process, presumably designed to let its officers off the hook. The committee is now charged with explicitly articulating its reasons for refusal and to make suggestions for “alternative recommendations”.

The shambles that followed the vote, hopelessly chaired, lasted 18 embarrassing and counter-productive minutes. Members of the public present, myself included, slowly observed the councillors’ amateurism and lack of expertise, serving to undermine our trust in Camden’s planning process.

I conclude that, in addition to the need to replace the committee chair, this new process is a unmitigated disaster. Camden should revert pronto to the previous protocol to avoid further loss of the public’s confidence.

PAUL BRAITHWAITE
NW5