Convenor must take responsibilityaswell

Referring to the article on the planning convenor wishing to avoid ‘marathon’ meetings (PA, July 7), I find it astonishing what a convenor can come up with to pass blame to her committee of “men”.

Regarding the convenor’s ‘equation’ it surely has three sides - it must include those who might object to a proposal.

After more than a decade on the

PKC planning committee, and some time as an officer attending Edinburgh Corporation planning committee meetings many years ago, this month’s meeting took the biscuit as the most prolonged I’ve experienced, in part needlessly I might suggest.

Not only was it a relatively modest agenda of five applications and one pre-application notification (PAN) for consideration, but it was terminated after over eight hours prior to consideration of the final two items.

The only reasons forthcoming for this curious termination of proceedings was that members were tired and the convenor had another meeting to attend, overlooking fact that the presumably fit and able vice convenor was present, as were deputations seeking to speak on one of the remaining items.

Clearly members need to read papers and available online information more thoroughly prior to meetings to avoid seemingly endless questions to deputations and officers.

However, preventing members from drifting from questions is the responsibility of the convenor and such practice could have been given short shrift early in the day.

Of most importance is that members, including the convenor, understand that in fairness to applicants and interested members of public, it is incumbent that the committee continues with its agenda until completion.

To facilitate this, and avoid tiredness and frustration, at commencement of the meeting, clarity as to timing and duration of comfort breaks in proceedings is imperative. Councillor Tom Gray