OneGuyFromBarlick

Tardis wrote:I wonder what the Town Meeting was then

The Annual Town Meeting is a meeting of residents of a town (strictly, electors of a parished area), it isn't a meeting of the town council.

Each parished area has to hold such a meeting between 1st March and 1st June each year. The meeting should be chaired by the chairman of the town (or parish) council.

In Barlick, unless there's a controversial issue affecting the town, it's not usually very well attended. The Pride of Barnoldswick Awards, which are presented during the meeting, attract a crowd, but folk generally leave when that part's over.

David Whipp wrote:

Tardis wrote:I wonder what the Town Meeting was then

The Annual Town Meeting is a meeting of residents of a town (strictly, electors of a parished area), it isn't a meeting of the town council.

Each parished area has to hold such a meeting between 1st March and 1st June each year. The meeting should be chaired by the chairman of the town (or parish) council.

In Barlick, unless there's a controversial issue affecting the town, it's not usually very well attended. The Pride of Barnoldswick Awards, which are presented during the meeting, attract a crowd, but folk generally leave when that part's over.

I've been to a couple of those but only as the official "Pride of Barnoldswick" photographer. Seems to have dried up lately, I must presume someone else does it now

Sorry Kev.

Make do with my amateur efforts nowadays...

David Whipp wrote:Sorry Kev.

Make do with my amateur efforts nowadays...

No problem as long as you're not paying someone else to do it

Reasonable rates still apply, cheers.

It is an official meeting and you were only just quorate to make it so. In terms of Council Mettings it was probably one of the best attended of the year

Tardis wrote:

It is an official meeting and you were only just quorate to make it so. In terms of Council Mettings it was probably one of the best attended of the year

Do I scare people off, then?

Big Kev wrote:

Tardis wrote:

It is an official meeting and you were only just quorate to make it so. In terms of Council Mettings it was probably one of the best attended of the year

Do I scare people off, then?

Possibly

The next meeting of the West Craven Area Committee is at the Rainhall Centre on Tuesday evening, 7pm start.

Here's a link to the agenda: http://www.pendle.gov.uk/egov_downloads ... .05.07.pdf

Post dates seem to have gone haywire?

Only seems to be in this thread and only the posts from Kev and Tardis - very strange. am doing a test with this one.

OK - its not users system clock specific, must be a wobbly on the site.

Whats the problem? David's is the only recent post, the rest are from a while back.

Looking at it again, I think Stanley (and myself) are still living in April.

Tardis post was 8 April, still showing that on my system. All others correct.

David Whipp wrote:The next meeting of the West Craven Area Committee is at the Rainhall Centre on Tuesday evening, 7pm start.

Here's a link to the agenda: http://www.pendle.gov.uk/egov_downloads ... .05.07.pdf

Pendle Council wrote:All but one major planning application was reported to Committee in time for a decision to
be made within the thirteen weeks. That equates to 96%. The outturn for dealing with major
applications was 72%. Whilst these schemes can be controversial the 72% figure is
substantially below the outturn for the previous year of 83%. Major applications are an area
of decision making that the Government is focused on. A continued worsening of
performance in this category could lead the Council into a position where applicants have
the option to bypass the Council and to have decisions taken by the Planning Inspectorate.Whilst performance is not at that level there is significant scope to improve decision taking
for major applications.

The Aldi Appeal should be known soon too

Hmm.

The big supermarket schemes were 'major' applications.

If councillors had slavishly made decisions to fit a government timetable, who knows what we might have got. (The Tesco/Wellhouse Mill proposal was first off the blocks.)

The way these applications were dealt with has avoided huge legal and planning appeal costs and probably the best decision we could get for Barnoldswick in the circumstances.

Should have the planning inspector's decision on ALDI any time now.

David Whipp wrote:If councillors had slavishly made decisions to fit a government timetable, who knows what we might have got. (The Tesco/Wellhouse Mill proposal was first off the blocks.)

The way these applications were dealt with has avoided huge legal and planning appeal costs and probably the best decision we could get for Barnoldswick in the circumstances.

Not entirely sure Neil's comments were aimed at the supermarkets, and certainly so far Pendle hasn't lost any of the supermarket appeals. I think that your comment is a distraction from what Neil has said (and I repeat the quote):

A continued worsening of
performance in this category could lead the Council into a position where applicants have
the option to bypass the Council and to have decisions taken by the Planning Inspectorate

That I believe, is the performance of the WCAC over the last year under your chair

Tardis wrote:That I believe, is the performance of the WCAC over the last year under your chair

So you'd prefer to push things through at the expense of getting them wrong. Don't think many Barlickers would agree.

Looking back over the last twelve months, all the major planning applications which came to the West Craven Area Committee were determined (approved or turned down) at the first meeting they came to. These included supermarket applications and one for housing at Salterforth which had previously been deferred (as it happens under the chairmanship of Tardis's party colleagues).

[quote="David Whipp]So you'd prefer to push things through at the expense of getting them wrong. Don't think many Barlickers would agree.[/quote]

Stand on your own record Cllr Whipp and that of your party, what have you to fear?

Stand down and I'll show you how I would do it.

Otherwise, please stop casting unnecessary aspersions

end, another topic please.

Tardis wrote:Stand on your own record Cllr Whipp and that of your party

In electoral terms, I thought I just did that... I must admit to not quite understanding the point you are trying to make. Why would someone who's been successfully elected stand aside for a failed candidate?

In terms of criticising the record of the local committee I've chaired for the last year, each and everyone of the major planning applications brought to committee during that period has been decided without delay. The important thing though is to make sure that the decisions are right - even if they do take longer than an arbitrary government target.

Without knowing numbers , and somewhat belonging to the Statistics threads cannot 72% be roughtly read as 3 out of 4, and 83% be read as 4 out of 5 . Percentages are a crude statistic, particulary on low basis, one needs to know total numbers in order to claim any Statistically Significant Variation , as quite simply a single item being delayed can affect the crude analysis reported.

Whyperion wrote:Without knowing numbers , and somewhat belonging to the Statistics threads cannot 72% be roughtly read as 3 out of 4, and 83% be read as 4 out of 5 . Percentages are a crude statistic, particulary on low basis, one needs to know total numbers in order to claim any Statistically Significant Variation , as quite simply a single item being delayed can affect the crude analysis reported.

The numbers are here:

http://www.pendle.gov.uk/egov_downloads ... f_year.pdf

You will notice the number of appeals, and David can itemise those where the officer in Bristol decided that the wrong decision had been made by committee. He knows his facts

Everyone probably also knows about the introduction of NPPF which supposedly speeded up planning permission in a bid to reduce costs to those applying

It is important that decisions are made at a local level and not surrendered to Bristol.

I see no numbers , only repeated percentages , which seem to be borough wide. The appeals would somewhat depend on the nature of appeal , one of error of Fact . Local committees have to use unbiased judgements within the framework of law and guidance prevailing at the time , but by their nature taking into account local conditions.

Worryingly in the report is " .. cases for new housing where the current lack of a 5 year housing supply in the Borough means that the Local Plan policies on this are superseded by the NPPF.." Has anyone actually got a numbers list of the quanity of persons actually in the Borough whom want new houses in the borough , or that lack of suitable housing is holding back employers in the borough. (Anyone counted the present number of houses up for sale , it appears to be around the normal 5% of housing stock ) More locally I assume , subject to quality of proposals the relatively recent clearence of the Bankfield mill site applications for housing will at some time go ahead. The other larger applications have been of a controversial nature changing the nature of established villages in unprecedented ways which it would be easy for a developer by constantly bringing forward various plans to wear down any political decision making. Finally just because an employed officer in any capacity makes a recommendation , there is no reason , in the light of further representations , considerations or facts why that recommendation should of itself either be 'correct' or followed.

In the last calendar year, there have been seven major applications determined. Some of these had previously been deferred by the committee and went over the government time limit. These were mainly the supermarket applications.

The position with planning applications for housing developments is quite bizarre.

There are lots of existing planning permissions for houses in Pendle.

In the current depressed housing market, developers aren't building many houses because they can't sell them. Several sites in West Craven are mothballed (eg Westfield Mill, Coates Mill).

However, Mr Pickles and the government say that if the number of houses that they decree aren't being built each year, developers can get permission for yet more sites based on the rules in the National Planning Policy Framework rather than the local plan.

Pendle Council is running a 'savings challenge', which gives people an opportunity to suggest ideas for reducing the council's budget.

You can take part by visiting www.letusknow.org.uk/savings2013