Abolishing the Council will save taxpayers substantial amounts in unnecessary taxes given they do not provide a service.
Ealing Council unable to answer the following straightforward questions.
The Leader of the Council refuses to intervene and submits matter back to Planning which is contrary to the Council Constitution which states "no one will review or scrutinise a decision in which they were directly involved" and to create a "powerful and effective means of holding decision makers to public account".
David Cameron has not even had the courtesy to respond to recorded delivery correspondence. Why are we electing governments to represent us when they have no intention to represent the people?
How a developer was permitted to circumvent the Planning Appeal Process clearly set out in the Planning Policy given there were no changes in the proceedings or the application since the previous meeting other than the fact of the implementation of PPS3 and the Council have not explained WHY the appeal process was not followed. If there is a process in place, how is it that the Council permitted breach of the Appeal process?
Why Ealing Council did not make reference to the Planning Committee of PPS3 which was issued in June 2010 and before the Planning Committee meeting itself given that the policy was material to the case with respect to backland development. Why the Planning Committee were not advised that changes in policy resulting from PPS3 would be relevant to the issue in hand.
Why Ealing Council stated that the revised PPS3 was not relevant given its implementation is retrospective.
Why Ealing Council did not follow its own procedures in notification of the Planning Committee Decision to Residents given we received formal notification on previous occasions. In particular, we were never formally notified of the Revocation Decision although it was published on the website, neither have we been officially notified that the Revocation Decision has been overturned so are assuming this is not the case.
How the Council were able to justify re-tabling the matter before a differently constituted committee after the planning committee had already made its decision in order to obtain the decision they required and thereby, circumventing the Appeal process.
Why were the newly constituted Committees not given the opportunity to view the development site in question given the controversy surrounding the grant due to Ealing Council's failure to properly serve notice to residents of the Application.