It's worth stepping back from the heat of this discussion to look at the facts more objectively, especially when it comes to Cllr Joanna Biddolph’s role in this situation.Firstly, councillors have the same rights as any resident to raise planning concerns—especially in a conservation area where the character of the estate is protected by Article 4 Directions. In this case, Cllr Biddolph, like other neighbours, raised an objection regarding a satellite dish visible from her property. That was entirely appropriate and within her rights as a resident.When the resident in question approached her at a councillors’ surgery, Cllr Biddolph rightly recused herself from involvement due to a potential conflict of interest. Rather than engage inappropriately, she referred Ms Hearne to her fellow ward councillors. That’s not evasion—it’s proper conduct, showing respect for due process.It’s worth remembering that a formal complaint against Cllr Biddolph was thoroughly investigated by the Council’s Monitoring Officer—an independent legal expert responsible for upholding the council’s constitution. The result? No wrongdoing found. None of the concerns were upheld. That should put to rest any suggestion of improper conduct.Unfortunately, attempts to draw Cllr Biddolph into the centre of this broader planning enforcement dispute seem to reflect a wider, ongoing campaign by some individuals to undermine her role. She has faced persistent and unacceptable personal attacks on social media—particularly on Twitter/X—that go far beyond reasonable debate. Whatever one’s views on planning enforcement, targeting a councillor with harassment is not acceptable.Let’s focus on constructive outcomes, such as the proposed meeting between residents and the planning team, rather than using this as an excuse to pursue personal vendettas. Planning consistency is an important issue—but misrepresenting a councillor’s actions in pursuit of political or personal point-scoring helps no one.Cllr Peter Thompson
Peter Thompson ● 36d