I ATTENDED the meeting of the Council's planning committee to listen to the debate about plans to develop Victoria Square. I left the meeting concerned by the process I had witnessed.

Planning decisions can heighten emotions on both sides. It is therefore important that our decision makers, and their advisors, apply rigour, logic and impartiality to the process. Based on what I observed, I have serious doubts whether the decision taken to approve the development was based on these essential foundations.

Briefly:

A. The Council's officers issued key advisory documentation to the committee only one day before the meeting. At least one member voiced concerns that he had not had time to adequately consider the document.

B. The advice of the Council's officers in this document was based on opinion. There was no evidence that officers had conducted sufficient or independent assessments.

C. The document made the committee aware of significant concerns from a variety of parties, including local councillors, the local MP, and the Parish Council. The committee debated none of these concerns, and the chairman often curtailed what little effort there was to debate the issues.

These concerns go beyond the Victoria Square development. If this is the best that we may expect from our decision makers for a relatively straightforward development, can we expect any better when more complex issues are involved, such as the plans to extend Arpley Meadow?

JONATHAN CLARK

Belvoir Road, Walton