The following is an edited version of a letter sent to Dean Hermitage of Southend Borough Council Planning Department and Andrew Edwards, a member of the GO East Planning Casework Team. Names of respondents have been removed for publication on the web.

Having viewed the Planning Application comments files this morning we would like to draw a number of worrying errors to your attention. There may well be others that we have not spotted as we didn’t have time to review every single letter. However, we believe that the errors we have found raise serious concerns about the way this planning application has been handled by your department and that the figures you have given for the number of objections and letters of support may well be inaccurate.

In the opinion of the SAEN committee, the issues detailed below seriously call into question Southend Council’s competence in handling this case and we most strongly urge the Government Office for the East of England to call this application in to enable proper scrutiny at a Public Inquiry.

1. The “Null Response” file

We asked for clarification on what “Null Response” means and were told that you had said that it was where a letter didn’t contain a full name and address. The file labelled “Null Response” apparently contained only letters of objection, some of which, granted, did not have an address given, but most of which *did* have a full name and address. The very first letter in that file had a full name and address, so it is difficult to see how this mistake could have been made.

Please explain why this file was labelled as “Null Response” when that is not what it contained.

2. The “No Objection” files

The files we were presented with had post-it notes attached to them which read either “Objection”, “No Objection” or “Null Response”. However, the figures you have given us break the responses down into “Objections”, “Supporting”, “No objections” and “Neutral”. Can you please explain how you decided which category a response fell into where it was not specifically marked as a letter of objection or support and why “Supporting” and “No objections” are mixed in the filing?

3. Null Responses in the “No Objection” files

We found a great many cases where people supporting or “not objecting” to the application did not supply a complete address but their letters were filed in the “No Objection” folders.

[9 names cited]

Why were these not filed in the “Null Response” folder and how can we be sure that they were not counted towards the “No Objection” or “Supporting” totals?

4. Objections filed as Support

We have found a number of specific examples where letters of objection have been filed as letters of support.

[6 names cited]

Some of these started by saying such things as “I support Southend Airport, but I do not support the extension of the runway.” These can therefore only be counted as objections to the planning application, which is specifically concerned with the extension of the runway. I recall Barbara Clark’s letter, which was handwritten, said “LETTER OF OBJECTION” at the top. Why were they filed as letters of support?

5. Double counting

We saw several examples of email messages in the “No Objection” file that had been printed twice and were in different parts of the file. It was obvious that they were the same message as they had the same time stamp and were identical.

[2 names cited]

How do we know that these have not been counted twice? Why were systems not put in place to ensure that duplication of this nature was not possible?

6. Comments from outside the area

I distinctly recall that when handling comments on the Priory Crescent scheme, the Council divided them up into comments from Southend residents and those outside the borough. Has this been done with the comments on this planning application? If so, please supply these figures. If not, why not? It was obvious from looking through the files that a large proportion of the comments of support came from outside the area, with conspicuously large contributions from Warrington and Cumbria. While some letters of objection came from outside the area, it was clearly a smaller proportion.

Given that the Development Control Committee meets on Wednesday next week, you will appreciate that a prompt response is required.

Tags: SAEN, Southend Borough Council

This entry was posted on Monday, January 11th, 2010 at 6:04 pm and is filed under Local Government, News, Planning Application. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.