Amendments to Brighton and Hove City Council’s planning procedures have been approved, with opposition members expressing strong disapproval of the alterations.
The modifications were passed by the governing administration and have been incorporated into the council’s constitutional framework.
These adjustments bring local planning regulations into alignment with updated national legislation.
Under the revised arrangements, council planning officers will determine a greater number of applications through internal processes, reducing the volume of cases reviewed publicly by elected committee members.
Certain applications will require determination regarding whether they should be handled by officers or elected representatives.
The chair of the council’s Planning Committee explained to a full council meeting how applications would be distributed according to the updated requirements.
The allocation process would involve joint determination by the planning head and the committee chair regarding which proposals required committee-level consideration.
Applications would still be referred to the Planning Committee when matters of economic, social or environmental significance to the locality were involved or when proposals raised substantial planning considerations.
A formal report presented to the council indicated that the ability for local ward members, conservation advisors and accessibility advisors to request applications be considered by the committee had been removed through these legislative provisions.
Existing thresholds for automatic committee referral based on objection volumes were also eliminated.
The council’s constitutional documents required updating to incorporate these mandatory legislative changes.
The committee chair noted that residents and council members would retain opportunities to submit observations on planning proposals and to request speaking rights at committee sessions.
Government guidance made clear that planning committees should concentrate on significant proposals affecting an area rather than becoming involved in minor or technical matters that officers could efficiently determine.
The regulations introduced a cap on planning committee membership at 13 members.
Brighton and Hove City Council would not be affected by this restriction, as the Planning Committee currently comprised 10 members.
A member of the Planning Committee representing the Green Party expressed concern that the alterations represented a significant challenge to local democratic processes, noting that the council had been compelled to implement the national policy without discretion.
The committee member observed that planning decisions were among the most effective means of involving residents in council activities, as constructing development near people’s homes naturally prompted engagement.
Attending committee sessions, raising objections and participating in the process, even when unsuccessful, provided residents with insight into local governance mechanisms.
The ability for local residents to witness their council making decisions held inherent democratic value.
Several concerns were raised regarding applications involving personal interests.
These would now be determined privately by the planning head either independently or jointly with the Planning Committee chair.
Such applications encompassed cases where the council sought permission for its own land or buildings or where councillors, officers or their family members submitted proposals.
Nevertheless, proposals affecting heritage sites such as the Royal Pavilion or the Dome were anticipated to remain subject to committee determination.
The planning head and committee chair would hold discretion over whether other sensitive proposals should be handled solely by an officer.
Currently, such matters tended to proceed through the cross-party Planning Committee, which conducted its business in public session.
Anyone could attend debates in the council chamber or view proceedings via webcast.
Concerns expressed about the changes included the possibility of sensitive decisions involving potential conflicts of interest being made privately, potentially inviting accusations of reduced transparency.
Additionally, there was concern that planning decisions, while made in accordance with legal requirements, might be unfairly attributed solely to the political administration controlling the council.
A Conservative member who had served on the Planning Committee for an extended period and previously chaired the body expressed the expectation that committee meetings would occur approximately annually.
The policy was described as undemocratic and placing substantial responsibility on individual officers and designated members, with comparisons drawn to governance approaches associated with more authoritarian systems.
The Planning Committee chair indicated that meetings would continue to be held at Hove Town Hall on the first Wednesday of each month.
An independent member of the council recalled previous committee proceedings regarding proposed alterations to a local public house, where applicants claimed difficulty sourcing specific materials.
The member noted that a former council leader had conducted an online search during the meeting and demonstrated that the requested items were readily available.
The member observed that neighbourhood planning protections now existed which would safeguard such features.
An independent councillor and planning academic expressed opposition to the modifications, indicating support for elevated standards and open decision-making.
The member noted that the documentation purported to strengthen councillor involvement in community engagement but in practice risked producing the opposite effect.
The member highlighted that the guidance repeatedly cautioned against members expressing definitive opinions, campaigning, influencing colleagues or developing informal professional relationships with officers.
The cumulative effect suggested not careful engagement but rather maintaining distance and minimal communication.
Such an approach did not constitute healthy local democracy.
The council’s amended constitutional provisions stated that members of the public and other bodies would not be permitted to lobby designated officers or councillors to bring applications before the committee.
This restriction applied to both conservation and accessibility advisory groups.
Following the meeting, observers noted that the council’s constitutional approach contrasted with legal principles established through judicial review proceedings.
A High Court ruling in the case of Holborn Studios against the London Borough of Hackney had determined that discouraging, prohibiting or preventing lawful communication between the public and their elected representatives would be extremely difficult to justify as proportionate.
Receiving communications from parties objecting to planning applications was identified as an important component of free expression in relation to democratic decision-making and local authority responsibilities.
The council confirmed that constitutional amendments were being implemented to reflect new national provisions governing how local planning authorities in England would handle planning matters.
The updated regulations take effect on Saturday 31 October.