Proposals to reduce the length of time councillors can speak on behalf of residents about new developments has been branded “crazy”.
Lichfield District Council’s planning committee has suggested restricting the time available to ward members to five minutes – rising to ten at the discretion of the chair.
The proposals were drawn up after what was described as “an informal debate” after a meeting as a way to prevent meetings from running over.
But a number of members of the council’s overview and scrutiny committee have called for a rethink on the plans.
Cllr Joanne Grange, independent member for Chadsmead ward, said the move would limit the ability of councillors to represent residents effectively.
“I fundamentally disagree – and the informal consensus of one committee is not a good way to make a decision.
“Reducing non-committee members speaking to just five minutes, most of us will know that getting your point across on technical planning issues is very difficult in that time.
“This is the only opportunity we have on behalf of our residents to feed into the planning process, so ten minutes is barely sufficient.
“Limiting the time to speak on behalf of people whose lives could be fundamentally impacted by planning is wrong – the convenience of the committee should not be a good reason to reduce our opportunity to speak on behalf of people.”
Cllr Joanne Grange, Lichfield District Council
The overview and scrutiny committee chair, Cllr Mike Wilcox, said there were other ways planning meetings could be shortened rather than reducing the input of ward councillors.
“I’m completely aligned with Cllr Grange. Ten minutes for many is not quite enough.
“I know from experience of speaking about large scale developments in Fradley that I’ve really struggled to get it in within the ten minutes.
“At the planning meetings officers go through each application in great detail, but members will have had these a good couple of weeks before the meeting. Most of the people will have a clear understanding.
“My suggestion would be that there be bullet points from officers of any issues they need to bring to the attention members at the meeting – that would reduce the time that is spoken.
“To reduce the time we can speak on our residents’ behalf is wrong.”
Cllr Mike Wilcox, Lichfield District Council
But Cllr Thomas Marshall, chair of the planning committee, said evidence demonstrated that five minutes was the standard time allowed by other local authorities.
“In terms of the way in which we administer the extension to ten minutes, I I was provided with a table of neighbouring authorities and none of them give ten minutes to any members to speak, with the exception of Stafford which gives ten for major applications.
“East Staffordshire is unlimited at the discretion of the chair, but at all of the others there is no way anyone could speak for more than five minutes.”
Cllr Thomas Marshall, Lichfield District Council
Cllr Grange said the focus should be on Lichfield District Council rather than what neighbouring authorities were doing.
“At planning there’s a maximum of four applications, so you’re saving a maximum 20 minutes.
“While other councils may do something different, I’m not that interested because the issue is that we’re changing our own protocols on a matter that is really important to our residents.
“This is a huge step backwards. As a council we’re going out saying we want to engage more – this is one place where people can get involved as we can get involved on their behalf.
“We’ve got to stop thinking about what’s convenient for us and start thinking about how we represent our residents properly. That’s the key factor in this.
“Saving maximum of 20 minutes from a meeting and cutting down our ability to represent our residents is crazy.”
Cllr Joanne Grange, Lichfield District Council
“A decision based on the feeling of some people”
Cllr Dave Robertson, Labour representative for Curborough, said any changes needed to be built on stronger foundations.
“We don’t have an evidence base to make a decision here. Instead, we’re making a decision based on the feeling of some people.
“If we’re looking at reducing the opportunities to speak, I’d want to see a much stronger evidence base because a lack of this is what is causing the difficulties in finding a consensus.
“We also want to make sure it’s collected over a six month period so it’s put to bed before the next elections. What I wouldn’t want is a new raft of councillors being presented with a raft of recommendations having not been through that process.”
Cllr Dave Robertson, Lichfield District Council
Cllr Marshall told the overview and scrutiny meeting that the views of the planning committee were valid.
“The consensus at planning – made informally – was that we felt the protocol as it exists wasn’t acceptable to the 15 members.
“I’m not sure how many sit on overview and scrutiny, but it isn’t more than 15.”
Cllr Thomas Marshall, Lichfield District Council
So let me get this right the Cllrs get a salary and they want to reduce the time spent at meetings……Do we get a rebate of 50%?
Planning is the most contentious issue on council agendas. The affected people rarely get their feelings and objections heard. Councils often operate in opposition to citizens concerns. And, yes the backroom planning officers dominate the meetings and hold sway on all decisions.
We are invited to send letters and texts in observation of any concerns we might have. Often this can amount to many hundreds. They are invariably ignored as having met the statutory requirements but inconsequential.
So the council want to dilute our ‘democracy’? Still further. Just why do they seek office? Who do they think they represent.