If you have been keeping an eye on the latest posts you will no doubt already be aware that the development proposal (known as the China Gateway) has been defered to a full meeting of the council. What does this mean and where do we go from here? This is the quetion I hope to be looking at in this post.

That disision was carried by the slimest of margins. Had even one councillor obstained or voted agaisnt this move thent he planning would have already been aproaved - something that many strongly feel would not be a wise or good move. Unusually for a planning application the gallery was quite full and it was clear that this was a subject that mattered to a large number of people.

The final vote was 8 votes for deferal to 7 against. The news was greeted by cheers and applause from many who had filed in to watch the meeting according to kentnews.co.uk.

It was clear that almsot all that opposed the idea felt a cynicall sense of hopelessness in the face of a council well rumoured to do exactly as it pleases. Kent News highlighted this best with their quote from one campaigner who opposed to the project: I’m shocked but happy. This is totally unexpected he is reported to have said.

This sense of hopelessness agaisnt the will of so few people comes out time and again with the likes of Counillor green asking Is the Council compromised? reporting Richard Nicholson belief the "council leader" Sandy Ezekiel was making an attempt at influencing decisions yet to be taken.

Indeed long time Thanet pundit Tony Flaig commented prior to the meeting in question that public opinion and common-sense rarely triumphs over money, and I sure tonight will be no exception. For now the unlikely seems to ahve been proven true and for no common-senseseems to be in charge if only by a very slim margin.

So now that the China Gateway has been posponed what can we learn and what happens now.

Normally a such a deferal would necessitate a lengthy delay while documents are prepared for councillors and questions are answered in further detail. I understand that a break of six months is not unexpected at this scale of things. Odd then that the meeting of the full council is in just a few weeks time.

Why has the meeting been called so quickly and who benefits from it? Do those who are opposed gain an advantage by rushing the application and thus hurting it's chances or do those wanting to force the issue through at speed have an advantage?

I can see no particular advantage for any of these suggested beneficieries which leaves many questions unanswered. Regulars of Michael Child's Thanet Online blog have been discussing the news for the last four days.

It is on his blog that Michael's cheif concern is put most sucinetly int he comments. The issue is that to conform to regulations the layout must be rearranged and [...] the X types are as large as aircraft hangers this means that the whole layout of the site would need to be changed, so the application is not ready in any sense to come before planning. [link]

There is no apparent statutory minimum and so this speedy hearing is legal but who exactly does it serve - who saves face? The fact that no one saves face in public sggests to me that one or more groups of people have made promises and now require the due process to back them up.

I am no expert but would that not be a further breach of trust?

Further, that is, to the documents found suggesting some Councillors were "naughty" during the planning and arrangment process. (Mentioned here but not published online by the papers). The result was a suggestion that Simon Moores, Alistair Bruce and Ewen Cameron were ready to resign in protest over the actions of their "team mates" - something that has raised my opinion of all three somewhat although the end result was inaction.

Frankly forcing an ellection at local level would have done wonders to raise public awareness and may have been a good move. Even a mass resignation from the party woud have had just a good an impact. Sadly this did not happen.

Yet the irregularities do not stop with potential back handers, preapproval (recomentation to approve) and a rushed meeting. Michael Child reports that there is a suggestion that this will be a whipped vote.

For those that are unclear what this might mean I can share (care of the wikipeida: Whip is a role in party-based politics whose primary purpose is to ensure control of the formal decision-making process in a parliamentary legislature. Whips are party 'enforcers', who typically offer both inducements and punishments to party members.

This would make the planning process a party political vote.

Cllr. Mike Harrison was first to comment saying I cant speak for the Tory Group but Labour Group rules are quite specific about there NOT being a whip on ANY Planning application. he went on to add I also believe its against the law.

so what happens now?

This all depends on a number of factors.

First if there is finding that leads to criminal prosicutions it could potentially be used to nvalidate any planning consent.

Second if the whip is used and this is not legal then again this could be used to invalidte the consent and things would have to be started from scratch. (Not to mention that there woud have to be an investigation).

If the vote is whipped and goes through and is legal and survives challenges basd on crimes commetned by people during the planning it could still end the political carrier of many or further alienate the people and the political classes that should the people in general become motivated to vote all sorts of maveric and fringe groups could claim power.

Even if this does not necessarily happen and planning goes through it will serve only to confirm the most cynical opinions of people about the political classes. To be honest the best possible long term reult for each party is to see this planning application struck down quite soundly. anything less will commit long term hurt to co-opperation between the governed and the governing.

So that is my unquie take on maters now ovedr to you - where do we go from here and what are the most likely outcomes?