Luke Stubb's letter

Luke Stubbs (Conservative) Councillor for Eastney and Craneswater Ward until May 2014

Luke Stubbs states he considers the planning officer's report to the committee to be fair and balanced and that he was mindful of its contents when voting for the application.

But as can be seen from the following references, the planning officer's report was not fair or balanced in the way it dismissed the petition issues without providing adequate reason for doing so. This seems to demonstrate the inability of councillors to get to grips with the appropriate level of detail so as to remain aware as to what has been presented in the petition and the degree to which this has received a direct and adequate response.

Luke Stubbs explains that the planning committee does not have a free hand to determine planning applications in whatever way it sees fit being bound by government imposed national and regional planning policy, as well as locally determined policies in the council's Local Plan. He explains that prior to 2000 redevelopment proposals were expected to reflect the surrounding area in terms of density, but that the government document PPG3 issued in 2000 placed an emphasis on getting as many units as possible on vacant sites.

If this is the case why does the planning officer go to some lengths to explain that the housing density under consideration is close to the adjacent property densities when in fact it is not. What is missing from Luke Stubbs review of the impact of PPG3 is the fact that the requirement to provide adequate on site parking was also abandoned. On the other hand the regional plan has specific parking allowances/requirements according to the size of property. There is therefore a good deal of confusion on this matter.

Luke Stubbs states that he does not support this policy (PPG3) and he would prefer higher levels of Greenfield development on the edge of urban areas. He then states that national policy is not something he controls and that he has to act within the framework imposed by government and the whole council. On this particular point, if as a politician he does not agree with the policy why is he not articulating this fact and lobbying his colleagues in Parliament to raise the issue with a view to reconsideration of its almost Stalinist approach to the management of community affairs. There is not much merit in considering oneself to be a representative of the people and an "active" contributor to local affairs when at the same time one laments that one cannot operate in a fashion that is reasonable from the standpoint of the residents.

Luke Stubbs states that the committee's role is to negotiate the best deals it can, bearing in mind that planning inspectors can, and frequently do, overturn their decisions. If one looks at the calamitous developments around Coniston Avenue these surely cannot represent the best deals planning committees have been able to obtain. It is very apparent that the planning committee is a rubber-stamping machine very much in the hands of the officers with councillors wanting a reasonably easy ride. Part of the problem is that the planning committees do not encourage pre-proposal consultation by those making proposals so as to obtain prior comments from local residents on planning proposals. In this way the planning committee would have a far better idea in what direction the "best deals" lie. As it is the committee demonstrated that it was simply not interested in the views of residents but only in the interpretation of these by a planning officer and his statements as to why they had no validity. The planning officers do not represent the people of Portsea Island and this role is supposed to be that of councillors who should be ensuring that the planning officer remains accountable for what is stated. This is only possible of the councillors read and adequately absorb the substantive issues being raised by the residents.

Luke Stubbs states that because planning inspectors overturn decisions that care has to be exercised since by refusing everything developers would have not incentive to deal with the city as their only hope of obtaining permission would be on appeal. It is therefore clear that the Portsmouth City council as a whole is simply not prepared to set a precedent as a City willing to stand up and defend residents by making a point of exceptions. This is how democracy works in the favour of people. However, the City and its representatives, so-called, are more prepared to endure the outrage of this Stalinist policy than to risk becoming conspicuous by rebelling against it. This is a regrettable state of affairs throwing into doubt the value of councillors and indeed local governance.

Luke Stubbs says that he feels the state of affairs might give the impression that the committee has no power at all, but that it not true. He says the committee has a lot of influence, but only if they play their hand well. This is a remarkable about face given that up until that point in his letter he was admitting to the complete lack of power. How can the committee play their hand well when they ignore the views of residents? Who benefits from the actions and decisions resulting from their having played their hand well?

Luke Stubbs says he is certain that is the scheme had been refused, this would have been overturned on appeal. He considers given the number of properties planned for the City, that "restricting" this site to seven units is a good outcome for the area because they could have been flats!

Luke Stubb's second letter

On the main complaint of the existing parking crisis would be exacerbated by this decision because of the lack of on-site provisions for parking and the turning of Coniston Avenue into a back yard with amenity impacts, Luke Stubbs has nothing to say.

Luke Stubss was moved to send a reply to the CAP response to his but this added nothing with respect to his awareness and therefore engagement with the issues raised by the residents.