SIR: Cllr David McLean’s comments in last week’s Chronicle were spot on. Planning Committee members naturally dislike retrospective planning applications because they always seem to involve an element of micky-taking or worse. However, that is effectively what the Council (as the applicant) has asked the Planning Committee to welcome by virtue of the consideration of the second application for the Barfield Close car park application on Monday this week.

The merits of the application can be debated either way, but what is unarguable is that the integrity of the planning process is being damaged, and the independence of the Planning Committee is being compromised, by the approach the Council has taken, possibly because it is desperate to secure LEP grant funding.

If the applicant had been anyone other than the Council, the Council (as the Planning Authority) would not have condoned the commencement of building works whilst the first application/consent was subject to a legal challenge. The Council would not have played along with the tactic of submitting a duplicate application. Any other applicant would have seen its application sat upon rather than expedited, as the Council has done for itself. The Council’s approach may be lawful but it’s sneaky and unseemly for a public authority.

To maintain the integrity of the authority and the independence of the committee the determination of the second application should have been deferred, and the building works stopped, until such time as the legal position of the first application is clarified. I hope that I’m wrong but, in the context of the money that’s already been spent on construction works and the Council (as the landowner) exerting all the influence it can for the scheme to proceed, there is zero chance of the Planning Committee refusing the application.

This application might not be as significant as Silver Hill or Station Approach, but it’s another example of the Council failing to resolve its conflict of interest as landowner, developer and planning authority, and of treating itself in a preferential way. Dare I say, Winchester still deserves better.

Kim A Gottlieb

East Stratton