IF THERE is any fault in the tree-clearing policies of the Vale Council, I wonder how far the elected councillors are responsible and to what extent salaried officers may themselves be responsible. It would probably be a bit of both.

For a number of decisions made by councils must involve an element of expertise, not ‘rocket science’ perhaps, but an honest and detailed knowledge of skills like tree surgery and so on.

If those experts say a tree is “diseased” or “potentially dangerous” it will be hard to argue with them.

Town planning is similar in this respect. It occurs to me that town planning officials today are like Christian priests in the Middle Ages, with a lot of power, and some real expertise, but in neither case were they elected by anyone.

There can be abuses, as with the medieval clergy – sale of indulgences, and the inquisition in one case, and at worst possible wrong planning decisions in the others. I understand that planning consents are granted by the whole council as an institution, yet planning committees, even sub-committees, may be given plenary powers, with the danger that councillors not on the relevant committee may be by-passed.

They should resolve to recommend to the whole council, not simply to resolve. Make it more democratic.

My impression is that most planning decisions made will ratify recommendations by officers, perhaps one individual officer, not elected by anyone.

Yet where there is complexity, elected councillors may lack the full knowledge and experience to challenge the experts effectively.

Michael O'Neill

Railway Terrace

Penarth