Increased Membership Gives No Guarantee for Independent Planning Seat

Published on: 30 Nov, 2018
Updated on: 30 Nov, 2018

The thorny subject of committee memberships is likely to provoke yet more animated debate at next week’s (November 4) full meeting of Guildford Borough Council (GBC).

Councillors will be presented with two options for a new share-out, following the defection by Colin Cross (Lovelace) from the Liberal Democrats to the new Independent Alliance.

The move leaves the GBC party standings at GBC as: Cons 32, Lib Dems 8, GGG 3, Ind Alliance 3, Lab 2. But the increase to three members in the Independent group, and commensurate decrease in the Lib Dem number, requires a re-allocation of committee seats, allotted proportionally.

Cllrs Cross, Rooth & McShee – the new “Independent Alliance”

The agenda states: “… the Democratic Services Manager will submit a report to the council showing what allocation of seats would best meet, as far as reasonably practicable, the requirements for political balance”.

The political groups at Millmead seem to value membership of the Planning and Overview and Scrutiny committees most highly, so Independent members are likely to be dissatisfied with the first option presented which keeps them off both, retaining the previous allocations to the Lib Dem and Labour groups.

Option 1 offers the probably unwanted consolation prize of an extra seat on the Licensing Committee to the Independents at the expense of the Lib Dems. Table taken from GBC agenda.

The Conservative council leadership seems determined to keep the Independents off the Planning committee, in particular. At the full council in October, when the allocation was last made following Cllr Bob McShee’s (Worplesdon) defection from the Tory group, Council Leader Paul Spooner (Ash South & Tongham) admitted that the leadership had preferred the Labour Party membership on the Planning Committee because it was one of the main, established political parties.

But Cllr Nils Christiansen, speaking freely since his deselection as a candidate for Holy Trinity in next year’s council election, criticising the reduced size of GBC’s Planning Committee in an opinion piece earlier this month, wrote “… local representation is at the whim of party leaders who carve up the Planning Committee between them “to ensure political balance”.

“This is no longer democratic accountability, it is political patronage.”

Option 2 would give the Independent Alliance a Planning committee seat at the expense of the Lib Dems, who are therefore less likely to support it as are the Tories. Table taken from GBC agenda.

A second option to be offered would give the Independent Alliance a seat on the Planning Committee at the expense of the Lib Dems but is less likely to be supported by the Tories or, of course, the Lib Dems themselves. Executive members will almost certainly reject this option but how the Tory rank and file vote will be of interest.

Additionally, Lib Dems and Labour group members are likely to prefer Option 1 which retains their representation on the two more sought-after committees.

Amendments to the proposal may be put forward before and during the debate.

Tony Rooth (Pilgrims), the leader of the Independence Alliance said: “The Planning Committee is usually regarded as non-party political and often referred to as ‘quasi-judicial’. We three Independent Alliance councillors have all sat on the Planning Committee before and have 25 years combined experience but none of us has ever been on Licensing.

“The Independents have the same number of councillors as GGG who have a seat on planning and more than the Labour Group who could nonetheless retain their membership. If we are not allocated a planning seat it will show that, once again, party politics will have played in keeping us off a committee for which we are well qualified.”

See also: Full Guildford Borough Council Meeting Round-Up and Guildford’s Planning Committee is Not Democratically Accountable

Share This Post