|
|
 |
| |
Amateurs rush in
A MAJOR report, 576 pages thick, in dense Town Hall-speak, on the future of the new city planned for King’s Cross, was received by Camden councillors last Thursday.
By tonight (Thursday) seven days later, they are expected to have closely studied the report, taken notes on it and formed judgements on it!
Speed reading is one thing, but in this case, the councillors would be expected, if they are to take their duties seriously, to be equally skilful at speed note-taking, speed reasoning and speed judgement forming.
They have been set the Herculean task of digesting the report at the rate of about 100 pages a day. In view of the fact they are part-time politicians, many in full-time employment, this surely is a task too far.
This way of conducting business would be bad enough for a planning application of minor importance. But this report, whose title, King’s Cross Central Main Site, spells out its significance for the borough and for the capital, highlights the amateurish depths councils sink to.
Why the rush? Could not the councillors have been given a more reasonable time to study this heavy document? Who decided the timetable? Was it the officials? Or senior councillors responsible for the planning committee? If the former, the question arises as to who is in charge?
The unelected officials or the chosen representatives of the people? If the decision was taken by the councillors, those who chose the seven-day deadline should publicly state their case for such a momentous step into the dark.
In the past we accused the former Labour administration of similar misadventures. The electorate must have hoped the new rulers at the Town Hall would be more prudent.
The signs, however, are that little has changed. Once again there is a mad dash to the precipice!
At the meeting tonight arguments will be made by opponents, often on fine points of law, laced with warnings that Camden council could stumble into a legal quagmire, but will the councillors be up to the task of forming a judicious decision? Hardly likely.
Scorched earth
THOSE who have unthinkingly decided to emasculate the essential services offered by the Camden Law Centre are, thank goodness, meeting resistance.
Last week we opposed the Lib Dem/Tory coalition’s scorched earth policy towards the Law Centre. This historic service should be cherished by politicians not dismissed with contempt – for that is what their present policy amounts to. They should pull back.
|
 |
|
|
|
