Nothing improper about committee changes

In December 2012 the planning committee decided not to make a decision on the Gateway planning application but sought more information on a lot of points but in particular on the issues around the number of jobs likely to be created by the proposed scheme. This was always going to take a long time and officers of the council also concluded that those who had already commented on the application should also be given time to comment on the additional information. Not surprisingly officers also need time to gather all the information and the responses so that they can consider and write the necessary reports.

Now in parallel the council has other processes going on, one of which is that at its annual general meeting every May, the composition of councillors to committees is agreed. Generally the number of members from each political party or group is made in proportion to the number of members it has on the overall council. It’s then up to each group leader to decide who of their group goes on each committee. It is not unusual for there to be changes and in fact we all do this to widen understanding and to take account of various roles and demands. This year there have been four changes to the planning committee. Last year there were four, the year before there were four, the year before that three. In 2007 there were five!

Of the four changes this year, only two are from the Conservative group. Labour and the Liberal Democrats also changed a member. I’d like to think I can control the other groups but I think me being responsible for their change is simply unreal.

In respect of the chairman of the planning committee, since the committee came into existence in its current size in May 2003, no chairman has had a tenure of more than three years. Councillor Illingworth had served for three years as chairman up to this May. Again, it is not unusual that changes are made.

There is a key thing of which members of the public need to be aware. Members of the planning committee should not have a predetermined view on a planning application. It would be biased and unfair to all concerned. Members may be predisposed but should remain open to the arguments put forward by objectors and supporters of an application as well as take into account the advice of their officers and the relevant material planning considerations. Therefore, the accusations being suggested that the committee membership is being “rigged” to vote in a particular way are untrue and in fact scandalous. I do not know how the two new members of the planning committee from the Conservative Group will vote. I do not know how the remaining members of the Conservative group will vote. I do not know how the other new members will vote nor the remaining members. Equally, I do not see how objectors can be sure that those who voted against the planning application will do so again or that those who voted for it will continue to do so. That would suggest them knowing that members have predetermined their views and that is wrong.

In addition, members can also arrange substitutes if they are unable to attend for any reason. In December, a substitute did attend and voted against the application (Councillor Williams); who was then subsequently confirmed by me, as leader of the Conservative Group, as a permanent member of the committee. I would suggest that is hardly the act of a person seeking to fulfil the committee with members who were only going to vote in favour of the application. It also demonstrates that it is difficult to know much in advance who actually is going to attend.

The Gateway application has understandably caused a massive amount of controversy. There are arguments for and against it. I suggest to all concerned to stick to arguing the merits or otherwise of the application and not to suggestions of poor process as that simply misleads.

Councillor Michael Doody, Leader Warwick District Council