Hugh Mason's letter

Councillor Hugh Mason (Liberal Democrat) Deputy Leader of the Council Cabinet Member for Resources Councillor for St Jude until May 2012

Hugh Mason sought to set the reason for his support of the planning proposal into various completely academic contexts separated some distance from the real context of the fundamental concerns of the petitioners. Through these contexts he sought to establish a perpsective on the evaluation of the specific application.

These read somewhat like a 101 course on population growth informing us that the population is increasing in Portsmouth, that there is a need for houses and that planning legislation lets you construct anything you want unless there are good reasons not to do so. He also states that unless refusals are reasonable then they are likely to be overturned on appeal.

Turning to the apecific application, like Luke Stubbs, Hugh Mason overlooks the point that there are two central points being raised by the residents. One that the housing density will exacerbate the already difficult parking situation and secondly the opening of back gates onto Coniston Avenue will turn it into a back yard with all of the associated issues that this brings in this area of Portsmouth resulting in a loss of amenity for the residents of the Avenue. Hugn Mason is not interested in addressing these direct concerns of the residents but continues to prsentation (lecture?) on the physical elements of the proposal by stating "On the matter of the layout of the site, I thought that any other than building along Copnor Road would lead to building up to the road in Coniston Avenue and would thus be unacceptable". It is not clear what Hugh Mason wants to say here. He also states that "This is not a location for a housing to be placed around a central courtyard," but he does not explain why he makes this statement. The basic issues is that 7 units are 2 too many and this is why there is no on site parking.

The main point about this letter is that, like Luke Stubbs, Hugh Mason does not address any of the main issues raised by the residents in their petition. Like Hugh Stubbs, he seems to be being led by the nose by the planning officials who were the elements who, in the planning officers report, are guilty of obfuscation of the points raised by the petitioners through justifications of rejection that reflect a low level of professional competence or dishonesty. The low standard of analysis of resident's concerns by the planning offcials reflects a somewhat shameful act of prejudicial prevarication, bordering on the scurrilous. It is as if the residents of Coniston Avenue do not in fact exist and that all that matters is o come to closure on decisions in a desk-clearing exercise. So much for professional independence and so much for representatives.