A FORTNIGHT ago, the people of Worcester made plain their apathy towards local politics and local politicians by staying away from the city council election in their droves.

At the time, observers from all corners of the city agreed that something needed to be done to restore faith in the system.

Imagine the consternation in some quarters, then, that concerns about the city's new Mayor, Robert Rowden, also being the council's planning chairman have effectively been brushed aside.

It's a concern we share.

Labour group leader Adrian Gregson fears that such a move might cast doubts in the public's mind about the impartiality of the committee's decision-making, given the role a Mayor plays in attracting investment to the city.

Councillor Rowden's formal response is to say that, as the Mayor presides over full council meetings which will also consider major planning applications, is Coun Gregson suggesting that he should no longer preside over those meetings as well?

With respect, that misses the point. This is about integrity as well as impartiality.

Leaving aside the individuals involved in this case, is any elected body wise to leave its fairness and honesty open to question, especially when that risk can be removed and an equally-able hand be placed on the planning tiller?

In Britain, the notion that justice isn't only done but seen to be done is a basic principle. We think that's a lesson the city council needs to heed.

At the very least, the electorate had the right to see the issue deferred and the consequences considered properly - but that isn't going to happen.