Claire Upton-Brown's letter

Claire Upton-Brown reminds the CAP representative that he was invited to a meeting with Darron Phllips and herself to discuss concerns and observations on the application. Although she says it was disappointing that the representative did not wish to meet with them, she does not mention that the dates they had provided were inappropriate because the representative would have been away. In any case, given that this invoilved a petition the representative advised that it was preferable to have everything in writing so that the exchanges could be shared on a more transparent basis with the petitioners.

Claire Upton-Brown attached a copy of the planning officer's report to the committee.

She then states that the planning officer was satisfied that the plans were accurate (in response to the identification of inaccuracies by petitioners). Ms. Upton-Brown does not address the issues raised she simply states the planning officer was satisfied.

She then quotes the planning officer's report verbatim on the issue of density of housing. Very much in line with the tactic applied by Luke Stubbs and Hugh Mason in shifting attention towards physical issues (which in substance are not adequate) and away from the main concerns of the residents concerning parking, the conversion of Coniston Avenue into a back yard and the resulting loss of amenity.

Ms. Upton-Brown writes from the position of a planning officer working in an authority where something like 92% of planning permissions are handled by the planning offers without reference to the Planning Committee.

She repeats the assertion that the plan is suitable for the site and states that, "The role of the Development Control Committee in the decision making process is to determine planning applications in accordance with adopted planning policies, government guidance and other relevant material planning considerations." she adds, "It is not the role of the Development Control Committee to simply weight up the level of local opposition to an application and refuse permission." This last statement somewhat gives the game away in that planning officers might consider the petition to have simply been some "local opposition". In fact the CAP was a series of valid comments and concerns on the impact of this poorly-conceived plan, as another example of the City of Portsmouth's Planning Department and Committee's ongoing abandonment of responsibility in not taking serious action concerning the parking chaos and associated issues of street saftey and the reduction in amenity caused by the planned back entrances into Coniston Avenue directly in front of the font gardens and house acceses in the Avenue. These central issues to the residents can be related directly to the density of housing proposed combined with the lack of on site parking provisions. The fact that there is not enough space for parking provisions only reconfirms the fact that the proposed density is too high.

These are all material planning considerations in the context of a democratic society within which the constituency is respected and their general expectations and preferences taken seriously.

Ms. Upton-Brown, ends up backing the political position of the councillors, which is not her job, by stating,"I appreciate that you are not happy about the decision to grant planning persmissio. However the Development Control Committee fully considered your objections to the application and concluded, on its planning merits, the proposal was acceptable." The evidence that the Development Control Committee did not fully consider the CAP objections to the application in that Luke Stubbs, Hugh Mason and, indeed, Claire Upton-Brown all failed to address the specific points raised in the correspondence received. The reason they were not addressed is because the planning officer side-stepped all of the substantive issues in his report and this, unless Luke Stubbs, Hugh Mason were asleep in the relevant meeting, is more than obvious. As a planning officer in support of her colleagues Ms. Upton-Brown goes along with the groundless justifications for there being no parking provisions by stating that there is provision for bicycle sheds and that public transport is available. To go where? Anyone living in Portsea Island knows that for at least the last 50 years this zone and the zone immediately to the south (centred on Locksway) have had the most deficient provisions for public transport. This is why over the same period a large number of people in this zone have had to rely on cars to get to work (sometimes a journey of around 10-20 miles). Indeed, even the simplistic "accessibility zones" mapped out by the City planning people makes this clear. So why does Claire Upton-Brown support this unprofessional and groundless tactic of dismissing resident's concerns through a clear case of prejudicial prevarication exercised by a colleague. No doubt this poor quality officer's report is considered to be an example of deft handling of "the residents concerns". This might be a sort of in-joke for planning officials but it is a serious state of affairs where it is evident that the weight of the planning officers in this decision outweighed their responsibilities to the degree that the officers report and Upton-Brown's uncritical acceptanvc of its contents only helps mislead the councillors. Even in the face of possible and likely protests from the planning officials it still remains the duty of councillors to keep on top of the issues and to understand and respond to, the concerns of residents. On these constituency points planning officers should keep their distance and, in particular, should not resort to the use of groundless, and therefore completely unprofessional and dishonest justifications, for dismissing residents' concerns.