CCC Development Control and Regulation virtual meeting this morning.
An online meeting of Cumbria County Council's Development Control and Regulation Committee took place this morning. 9th June 2020
This was the first CCC planning committee since the lockdown and the council's second formal meeting held online - the first was a meeting of the Scrutiny Management Board held online last month.
You can find the agenda papers at:
The meeting was live-streamed in realtime but you can still watch it at:
All votes were held by roll call, with each member confirming as their name was called that they were (virtually) present and connected on the call and then saying how they were going to vot, usually with a form of words like "Present, connected and voting FOR the recommendation."
As explained in my previous post about this meeting, it did not and was never due to make any decision on the amendments to the West Cumbria Mining Application, on which the public consultation period is still open. (The last day to comment is next Monday, 15th June.)
The officers did however add a short verbal statement about the current position and process to be followed to the written report, the key point being that the application is expected to come to committee on 8th July, that it is anticipated that members of the public might wish to speak to the application, and that arrangements for them to do so will be published shortly.
Comments
The officer made a "blink and you'll miss it" reference to it at the very end of the meeting, explaining why the decision notice has not yet been issued but making clear that he was not going to go into the merits of the proposal as that could be seen as pre-determination but that arrangements would be published soon for public participation.
You must have blinked and missed it.
I did not ask for childish potty-mouth insults to both Cumbria and members of the council and using language which is not allowed on this blog (and has therefore been deleted.)
If you can point to something specific which was wrong with the meeting, or have a constructive suggestion for how it might be improved, please feel free to do so.
If all you can do is post profanities which are so devoid of specific meaning that nobody has the least idea what specifically you thought was wrong with the meeting, please don't bother.
The Sellafield item I took as a warning to us all, as if we needed it, that applicants will agree to any condition set in the long term in order to get their approval. They do this safe in the knowledge that it will be someone else's problem to resolve and that they can probably and successfuly apply to have the condition removed later.