• IT is worrying to see Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors misrepresent basic elements of how the planning system works in the CNJ in recent weeks.

Perhaps, as a barrister specialising in planning law, I can explain to them how planning works.

A correspondent claimed last week that an application relating to 100 Avenue Road had been appealed to Michael Gove. This is not true.

The appeal will be heard by a Planning Inspectorate, a fully independent, quasi-judicial body.

Appeals to the inspectorate are decided in the secretary of state’s name only nominally.

The decision is entirely made by the planning inspector, who “stands in the secretary of state’s shoes”. This is similar to the way that courts nominally rule in the Queen’s name – it’s a legal fiction.

But that legal fiction seems to have been turned into just pure fiction by Labour, who think councillors should waste their time lobbying someone that isn’t actually involved in the decision, instead of fixing issues here in Camden.

The week before, the Lib Dems tried to jump on the bandwagon too.

Not only did they repeat the misunderstanding that the appeal was to the secretary of state but they claimed the appeal concerned affordable housing.

Except the application in question is not about affordable housing – that’s an entirely different application and can’t be appealed because it’s already been refused.

The latest appeal is about the facing materials only.

The Lib Dems had literally not even read the description of the appeal, let alone the appeal itself, before deciding they could make political hay by going to the newspapers about it. Fortunately the CNJ saw through it.

These errors were repeated on social media by one of Camden’s cabinet members, Adam Harrison, who also sits on the planning committee.

It’s bad enough that Camden, almost uniquely, allows cabinet members to sit on the planning committee without them misrepresenting how planning works.

It was also surprising to see, given Cllr Harrison voted for the 100 Avenue Road development in the first place; indeed, the majority of Labour members voted for it or abstained.

When there are a number of major developments – from the O2 Centre to Murphy’s Yard – it would be helpful for Camden councillors to inform residents.

But it does seem as though the problem with a council led by career politicians is that they understand politicking but not planning.

ANDREW PARKINSON
Address supplied