This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
MAKING PLANNING FAIRER I STEVE WEBB RAISES IN PARLIAMENT ISSUES THAT ASHTAV HAS HIGHLIGHTED


ASHTAV raised concerns over democratic deficits in the planning system at local council level in its


first magazine of 2005. ASHTAV is heartened that Steve Webb, MP for Northavon in Gloucestershire chose this issue as his topic for an adjournment debate early in November 2005. Here is part of what he said, as recorded in Hansard:


Steve Webb (Northavon) (LD): It is good to have the opportunity this afternoon to raise a subject that is prompted by an individual constituency case, but is of much wider interest to all those involved in local government. To put the matter in context, one of my concerns is that many local councillors feel increasingly powerless. … The move to a cabinet system of local government, which we have in south Gloucestershire, is great for those in the cabinet, but many back-bench councillors feel that they have very little say and involvement…


The one thing that councillors can be, and seek to be, and often get elected to be, is a champion for their community. Planning is one area in which they can try to exercise that function. It is important to say at the outset that it is proper and right for a local councillor to try to influence a planning process on behalf of the people he or she represents. As the Nolan Committee's third report says, at paragraph 288: "It is essential for the proper operation of the planning system


that local concerns are adequately ventilated. The most effective and suitable way that this can be done is via the local elected representa- tives, the councillors themselves." I am sure that the Minister agrees with that. The question then arises whether that is what is happening, or whether the genuine, legitimate concerns to ensure that planning is done properly have been taken too far and constrained the legitimate democratic acts of local councillors in their attempts to represent their own community. The latter is the case in at least one respect—the con- sequences, which may not have been intended by the drafters, of the Local Government Act 2000 for the way in which councillors are involved in planning decisions. The example that I want to give—I shall give the details of a particular case in a moment—is of a councillor who is on a planning committee when a planning application is submitted that relates to their ward……. They can be on the planning committee and cast their vote, but can express no real opinion throughout the entire planning application process; they must sit as sober as a judge when the arguments are presented at the meeting, weigh them up, and come to their so-called independent decision. Alternatively, they can say, "To hell with that—I know exactly what I think about this application and I know what my constituents think about it. No way am I going to keep my mouth shut for the next three, six or nine months. I am going to speak out, knowing that I then cannot vote and cannot be part of the discussions on that application." In


4


the jargon that is called fettering discretion….. If a councillor is on the planning committee and people in his or her ward say, "This is a terrible application; it would be dreadful for local people", the councillor has to say, "I cannot say anything." …. if there is any sniff that they have made their mind up beforehand, the applicant can appeal, can go to the Standards Board, or can go to the local government ombudsman. Councillors are therefore incredibly nervous about expressing an opinion. … It is a strange situation, in which the person whom the people elected to represent them cannot speak, but the person whom they did not elect can speak. That does not seem right. However, it gets worse. If a councillor lives in the ward affected by the planning application, the rules say that if that councillor has a personal and prejudicial interest, he or she cannot even speak. Not only can they not vote, or be part of the discussion, they cannot even speak. In other words, the councillor has fewer rights to come along and say their piece than a citizen in their ward.


What is a personal and prejudicial interest? Under the local authorities' code of conduct 2001, it is defined as follows "a member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24