The Gurn had already reported the controversial issue of two Councillors being excluded from the Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey area planning committee on Friday. The eventual decision was taken by only eight members of the 17 strong committee however. The Press and Journal reports:
'Highland councillors unable to attend a key planning meeting for health reasons or due to long-term commitments have responded to their critics.
Seven of the 17-member Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey area planning committee were unable to be at a special hearing on Friday on the contentious issue of a 33-turbine windfarm proposal for Dunmaglass Estate, near Loch Ness, 15 miles south-west of Inverness.
Two others had to leave the room because of their public objections to the scheme.
More than a dozen of the 1,556 objectors to the proposed 394ft high turbines travelled to the Inverness meeting.
Several were angry that only eight committee members were in the chamber to consider the council’s view on the planning application.
The committee voted six-two not to object to Hertfordshire-based developer RES Group’s plans.'
Whatever your position on wind energy this doesn't look good for democracy. It's 2010 and a new age of technology, why can't Councillors absent on business or through ill-health simply use their Highland Council laptops or Blackberries to vote? They could all be issued with a password to enable them to do so or could e-mail the planning department with their decision beforehand, or maybe even a snail mail vote such as that available to the electorate at the General Election. It makes a mockery of the system if technology is ignored, maybe there needs to be a change in the law to allow it to happen? Read the full P&J article here. ( I wonder how long we'll be able to link to these articles, will the P&J go behind a pay wall like the Times Group are planning to do?).
6 comments:
Hi Gurn
As far as I am aware the decision making process dictates that councillors must not have made up their mind beforehand and must be in the chamber to listen to the whole of the debate.
Perhaps the question to ask yourself would be:
What are the rules regarding the minimum number of elected members essential to conduct the business of that committee?
From the Standing Orders for the
Conduct of Meetings:
12.1 No business will be transacted at a meeting of the Council unless at least 20 members (i.e. one quarter) of the Council are present. In the case of any Committee, Sub-Committee or other Group to which these Standing Orders apply, the quorum will be one quarter of the membership, subject to a minimum of 3.
I will put a link to the Standing Orders on the APT blog
Apologies for any typos
The simple arithmetic reveals that 6 out of 17 members of the Planning Committee voted for the windfarm project (with 2 against, and 8 absent and thus non-voting).
6 out of 17 is not a majority.
How could you know how the 7 absent councillors would have voted?
All 7 could have all voted in favour of the application and that would have given a majority in favour of the application as being 13:2. If they had all been there, all 17 councillors, how could you say that they would not, having considered that particular application, have voted 17:0? If only 3 of the 7 absentees had been in favour of the application that would have given a result of 9:6 i favour of the application.
Not so simple arithmetic
Surely the question is how many are allowed to make a decision?
As APT Sec states it seems you need very few members present to have a vote:
'In the case of any Committee, Sub-Committee or other Group to which these Standing Orders apply, the quorum will be one quarter of the membership, subject to a minimum of 3. '
To this observer that just doesn't seem good enough when controversial applications are being discussed. Surely the hundreds of supporters and objectors were worthy of more representation at that meeting?
Anonymous at 5.19pm (above) wastes some space in arithmetical speculation...
All 7 could have all voted in favour of the application and that would have given a majority in favour of the application as being 13:2. If they had all been there, all 17 councillors, how could you say that they would not, having considered that particular application, have voted 17:0? If only 3 of the 7 absentees had been in favour of the application that would have given a result of 9:6 i favour of the application.
These are speculative "ifs", precisely because so few were able, or permitted, to attend, and no-one can know, guess, or assume how the absentees might have voted.
The fact is that on a 17-member committee, a majority is 9. This vote recorded only 7 in favour.
Anonymous at 5.19pm is however right to raise the question "how many are allowed to make a decision".
Manipulation of the rules is a favourite trick of authoritarian regimes, and an abuse of democratic principles.
Interestingly the Courier seems to hint at another reason, namely that it is Holyrood's decision in this case whatever the Highland Councillors think, believe or vote:
'The circumstances surrounding a planned wind farm at Dunmaglass are different but the result is the same - objectors feel their concerns were swept aside. In this instance the final decision rests with ministers but Highland councillors signalled their approval on Tuesday with an almost resigned air, concluding that Holyrood would back the scheme no matter how they voted.'
You can read an interesting Courier leader on planning matters here
Post a Comment