Thread by @SGasworks

We live in interesting times. At 6pm, @LewishamCouncil's Mayor and Cabinet will approve emergency #planning rules for COVID-19 shutdown, removing far more democratic scrutiny than other councils think necessary. Lewisham is exploiting COVID-19 to limit scrutiny. @853london

Altering @LewishamCouncil's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) is vital; councils are obliged to follow their SCI procedures as a statutory obligation. You can't make changes without revising your SCI. Just one problem; Lewisham have been ignoring their SCI for years.

I am tweeting this trail because, despite requesting 12 days ago to make representation, @LewishamCouncil have decided they won't read out my comment as requested, due to lack of an adequate IT connection to speak at the virtual meeting. Typical of Lewisham’s belief in scrutiny.

@LewishamCouncil's SCI hasn't
been revised since 2006, predating much digital access. A draft revision was made in 2018 by the Local Democracy Review, but was dropped in favour of Lewisham cheerfully making it up as they go along. Who cares about the law? This is Lewisham!

The potential legal consequences of failing to follow SCI was stressed in a High Court judgement in June 2020, Holborn Studios 2. We have legitimate expectations that SCI procedures will be followed; failure to do so cost Hackney Council dearly.....

39essex.com/39-from-39-epi…

Amenity societies across the borough are frustrated at being sidelined by @LewishamCouncil, and not being consulted on the changes. They have a great deal of local knowledge, which is apparently unwelcome.

https://twitter.com/Grainne_Cuffe/status/1301860486460432387?s=19

@LewishamCouncil needs to make specific commitments to procedural fairness in virtual planning. Having meaningful public consultations and scrutiny are key, yet the proposed changes fail to deliver on these. Public trust in Lewisham planning has been minimal for a very long time.

@LewishamCouncil has, by failing to respond to legitimate issues raised, created a crisis. Failures to act on planning breaches have been compounded by an aggressive refusal to disclose documents that are legally accessible, even through #FOI requests.

Lewisham’s belief in its own unaccountability has escalated to the point where, in October 2019, reminding the executive I was due outstanding data for a FOI request, I sat waiting in the Lawrence House public library. I was physically carried outside and dumped on the pavement.

That evening, without warning, I was physically manhandled out of the @LewishamCouncil Civic Suite, stopping me attending a council meeting. The next day I was refused entry to a planning Committee meeting, where I was due to speak as the principal objector.

Events in the Civic Suite were witnessed by the Mayor & councillors, who never questioned the soviet approach. No scrutiny, no justification, and certainly no apology. I am still denied access to the CCTV evidence of Lewisham’s actions, almost a year later. It's the Lewisham Way.

It appears that @LewishamCouncil is convinced it's entitled to act unchallenged, and has become tyrannical in its abuse of power. Asking for FOI requests information is a legal right, not ASBO material. It shouldn't bring this level of overreaction in a democratic society.

@LewishamCouncil's SCI says that public comments on planning applications "... will be made available for public inspection...."

This is vital for public scrutiny, as without access to them, the planning officer's summary in the committee report can't be assessed for balance.

It becomes even more worrying when that same planning officer is enabled to act under delegated powers. @LewishamCouncil has been adamant in refusing to follow their SCI procedure, claiming that public comments can't made publicly accessible due to data protection law. BUT.....

...... comments are accessible in Brent, Bromley, Croydon, Greenwich, Hackney, Harrow, Islington, City of London, Southwark, and Westminster, who say "by law all comments are open to public inspection as they form part of the statutory register for all planning applications."

I haven't yet found a single council that agrees with Lewisham's version; executives won't explain their reasoning. It's particularly worrying that this stance isn't public knowledge; it is stated by relatively junior officers, but the executives don't back them up.

Lewisham's SCI says "A full list of those who have made written representations will be made available on request so that they can get together to coordinate a single presentation to the committee." In virtual process, objectors can't network, so sharing agreed contact info helps

Naturally, and you may have noticed a theme developing, @LewishamCouncil refuses to follow its own #SCI, and allow objectors to share contact details, even to prepare for a @PINSgov #planning inquiry.

In the virtual planning process there are fewer opportunities for objectors to contribute, so it is crucial that all application papers, plans and their background documents are made accessible in good time. These form the planning register, which must be accessible by statute.

Naturally, in @LewishamCouncil's Kafka Towers, it has been decided to use covid to avoid pesky democratic accountability. Their current policy of withholding planning register content is being escalated, allowing planning to consider public access 'on a case by case basis'.

Backdated documents are uploaded to the @LewishamCouncil planning register after the planning committee has granted permission.
This distorts the planning application file, suggesting that the document was present and available for public and committee consideration.

This is happening on the recent Mais House redevelopment on the @cityoflondon's Sydenham Hill Estate. Several documents have been uploaded after the committee granted permission, but dated to suggest they were registered in good time. Nothing to see here...

Mais House was approved despite a lack of accessibility / equalities data. The site's gradients are excessively steep, but the developers refused to share data with concerned residents until shortly before the Committee met. No user groups were consulted on accessibility issues.

The two high court judgements on Holborn Studios give clear guidance on LPA practice, on the statutory duty to follow its SCI. @LewishamCouncil is quite intransigent on the issue, refusing to respond to questions, even FOI requests and corporate complaints by its councillors.

The @LewishamCouncil planning officer's response to questions on accessibility was published shortly before the planning committee meeting, so concerned residents had no chance of submitting an effective challenge, potentially affecting the outcome of the case.