Teignbridge councillors can vote on plans

Idea to stop them representing own voters thrown out

Councillors have thrown out a proposal to prevent them from voting on planning applications in their own areas.

Members from all sides took turns to criticise the planned change to the rules at a full council meeting of Teignbridge District Council at Newton Abbot Racecourse on Monday, voting overwhelmingly to reject it.

Currently, 17 of the 47 Teignbridge councillors sit on the planning committee to decide on applications which are referred to them. All 17 can cast their vote, irrespective of where the application is unless they declare a conflict of interest.

The proposed change, which originated from the council’s standards and procedures committees, was that “councillors serving on the planning committee are no longer permitted to vote on applications within their ward”.

Leader of the authority, Councillor Alan Connett (Lib Dem, Kenton and Starcross ward), said it was about whether “the vote for a member on the planning committee on an application in a ward takes priority over, for example, the risk of the pressure applied to a councillor or being seen to favour one side or another”.

Cllr Connett added that “on balance, and for me it’s a fine judgement call,” he would vote in favour of the proposal, but said: “I fully respect the desire of councillors to say ‘no if I’m on planning I want to vote on all matters including those in my ward.’”

But fellow Liberal Democrat, Councillor Sally Morgan (Bovey), called the proposal “rather authoritarian and somewhat illiberal”.

Leader of the Newton Says No group, Councillor Liam Mullone (College), said: “If passed, this is going to disenfranchise anyone concerned about a local issue – a beauty spot, a day care centre, a cinema, a bypass – they won’t be able to organise and seek a mandate at election because there won’t be any point. Any advocate for them will be left voiceless simply because they live in the place a project is scheduled for.

Councillor Adrian Patch (Independent, Haytor) said the proposal “strikes to the heart of local representation,” adding: “If local elected representatives of communities cannot exercise a vote, having taken into account all the material considerations and the arguments for and against, then a big link is cut between the representational power of that member and their ability to represent the views of their communities.”

Councillor Andrew MacGregor (Lib Dem, Bishopsteignton), a member of the planning committee, said: “This is a solution for a problem that does not exist. It’s a solution that treats us like children. A solution that erodes local democracy and a solution delivered, in my view, under dubious circumstances.”

Another committee member, Councillor Jackie Hook (Lib Dem, Bushell), who has been on it since 2011, added: “The implication of what is being recommended is that councillors cannot be objective about some applications in their own ward

“…our duty at the planning committee is to consider the interests of the wider district in the round when we consider applications. I’d like to think I always do that.”

Cllr Hook continued: “If a councillor has an interest which means they’re not able to [be objective] then they need to declare it, as has been stated, but we shouldn’t take away the right of councillors to vote on applications in their own ward.”

While the leader of the Conservative group, Councillor Phil Bullivant (Bradley), shadow member for planning said: “We’re increasingly seeing a seek to question the integrity of councillors and to me, there are 47 councillors in this room, and their integrity I respect. I think in this case, we should respect the integrity of our councillors. We shouldn’t put in front of them barriers to prevent them representing through a vote.”

In acknowledgement of the strong opposition, Cllr Connett offered to withdraw the proposal, but members instead opted to reject it.

Councillors also rejected another change in which motions to approve, refuse or defer planning applications should be made at the end of a debate on the application.

Two further proposals, on creating a deadline for the submission and consideration of new information on planning applications of midnight Thursday prior to a meeting were referred back to the procedures committee.