The StirrerThe Stirrer

news that matters, campaigns that count

for Birmingham, the Black Country and beyond

BIRMINGHAM'S SECRET SOCIETY

17-11-2006

Birmingham Council has admitted that taxpayers and councillors are being kept in the dark about meetings between city officials and developers. The revelation comes after The Stirrer requested details of a get-together 19 months ago about Ravenhurst Playing Field which has only just come to light.

Details of the meeting were first reported here on The Stirrer earlier this week. All we know for certain is that the council's planning department were represented, along with Sport England and the house-builders Wimpey.

But did the council indicate that a planning application to build on Ravenhurst would be successful? The council says not, butSport England claimsthey did.

TheirRegional Director Steve Roundclaimed in a letter sent only this month that ascheme to develop part of the playing fields “did receive support in principle from the City Council's planning officers".

Here, for the record, is the city's response to our request for more information about that meeting which took place on 6 April 2005.

“All pre-application discussions and notes of meetings with developers are

confidential under the Freedom of Information Act. A meeting did take

place in April 2005 but was attended by officers only, with no Councillors

present.

“Contrary to impressions given by others, the City Council has

never indicated its support for such a proposal nor has it received

sufficient information to justify the release of any of these playing

fields."

Of course, if the meeting had been properly minuted and details published, we'd know who was telling the truth.

That's not to say thatdevelopers - like everyone else - don't have the right to seek planning advice. They do. But given the impact their ideas might have on local communities we would argue that discussions about any major scheme should be made public at the earliest opportunity.

Ravenhurst is a classic case in point. Local residents, on discovering that discussions have been on going for 19 months which have excluded them and their local councillors feel bypassed by thedemocratic process.

No one is suggesting that anything illegal or improper has gone on - but greater transparency would ensure that taxpayershad the sensethat the council they pay for and vote for is actually representing their interests and not those of big business.

Leave a comment or raise new issues on The Stirrer message board.

©2006 The Stirrer