Opinion: Guildford’s Planning Committee is Not Democratically Accountable

Published on: 16 Nov, 2018
Updated on: 18 Nov, 2018

Cllr Nils Christiansen

By Nils Christiansen

Conservative borough councillor for Holy Trinity Ward (and member of the GBC’s Planning Committee)

Until May 2017, each of the 23 wards in Guildford Borough had an elected councillor on the planning committee. Officers and council leaders claimed this led to a poor quality of debate and made the committee unmanageable.

They complained that members tended to regard themselves as ward representatives rather than impartial experts needed for the “quasi-judicial” function of the planning committee, so they proposed reducing the committee size to 15 and abolishing the link to council wards.

With others, I opposed this change at the time, but it was voted through with support from the leaders of both main parties, albeit subject to a “comprehensive review” after 12 months.

This review was presented to the planning committee on November 7, and is notable for its complete lack of analysis. There are no facts or figures. There are simply comments such as “We feel this has worked well”, “This seems to have improved significantly” and “We feel the general standard has improved”.

The chairman was going to wave through this whitewash, but several members, including myself, spoke strongly against. We managed to force a vote, but officers and party leaders got their way and the new system is now here to stay.

So why is this important?

Planning is one of the most visible and contentious activities of the council. There are large sums of money at stake, and strong feelings are generated amongst neighbours and other residents.

Planning is governed by strict rules, some set by central government, others set locally Mostly, the rules are simply interpreted by unelected council officers or appeals inspectors. The only time ordinary residents concerns can be aired in public is if an application is called into the planning committee which is made up of elected councillors.

The courts have held that the role of councillors on the planning committee is not as judges or even quasi-judges, but rather to act “in a situation of democratic accountability”. This seems to have been overlooked in Guildford.

At the planning committee, officers should expect to have their reasoning challenged by the public and by their elected representatives. Committee members should thoroughly understand the rules so that they can provide appropriate challenge and debate, then vote in a fair and informed way.

Importantly, councillors should also understand the local context. For example, is there something about the history or character of the local area of which officers were not aware? Local ward councillors are uniquely well-positioned to provide such information. Indeed, this is part of their job.

As part of being accountable, most residents expect their elected councillor to help ensure their concerns are heard, and later explain to them the planning committee’s decision.

Because of these changes, Guildford now has two tiers of ward: those with a representative on the planning committee, and those without. It is noticeable that if a committee member has an application in their own ward they invariably feel compelled to speak on it, and usually speak first to frame the debate.

We are told that this does not matter since any elected councillor can request permission to attend and speak, but in practice, this rarely happens and, anyway, such councillors do not have a vote.

In reality, we have moved from a planning system where residents had real local accountability, to one where 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.

Share This Post