Opposition councillors slammed changes to the council’s planning rules as “an affront to democracy” and like something out of Moscow or Beijing.
But Labour councillors voted through the changes – now part of Brighton and Hove City Council’s “constitution” – to reflect new national planning law.
As a result, council planning officers will decide in private even more planning applications than they already do, with fewer being decided in public by the elected councillors serving on the council’s Planning Committee.
In some cases, the council will have to decide whether an application should be decided by officials or councillors.
Labour councillor Alison Thomson, who chairs the council’s Planning Committee, told a meeting of the full council how applications would be allocated.
She said that, as the new rules required, she would decide, jointly with the head of planning, which applications should be determined by the committee.
Some applications would continue to be decided by the Planning Committee if, for example, they involved issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the area or raised “a significant planning matter”.
A report to the full council said: “The ability for ward councillors, the Conservation Advisory Group and the Disabled Access Advisory Group to request applications to be called to committee is removed by these regulations.
“So too are the current trigger points for referral to committee if a certain number of objections are reached.
“The council’s constitution must be amended to take into account these mandatory changes.”
Councillor Thomson said that the public and councillors could still comment on planning applications and ask to speak at meetings of the council’s Planning Committee.
She said: “The government is clear that planning committees should focus on the key proposals that matter to an area, rather than being drawn into minor or technical applications that can be efficiently determined by officers.”
The regulations also place a limit on the number of members that a planning committee can have. The maximum is 13. Brighton and Hove City Council is unaffected by this cap, with 10 councillors currently serving on the Planning Committee.
Green councillor Sue Shanks, a member of the Planning Committee, said that the changes were “a great affront to local democracy” because the council had no option other than to adopt the national policy.
Councillor Shanks said: “Personally, I want to make a stand of some sort for democracy.
“As we know, residents get very engaged in planning. It’s one of the best ways if you want to engage residents – plan to build something next to them.
“And then, coming along to planning meetings, objecting and engaging, even if they don’t win, they often feel like they’ve seen the process. They know how it works. This is the local council making that decision – their local council.”
Among the concerns are the way in which many “own interest” applications will be decided out of the public gaze by the head of planning alone or with the chair of the Planning Committee.
“Own interest” applications include cases where the council seeks planning permission in relation to its own land or buildings – or when councillors or officials or their relatives submit applications.
It is expected, however, that plans to make changes at the Royal Pavilion or the Dome would be decided by the Planning Committee.
But it would be up to the council’s head of planning and the chair of the Planning Committee to decide whether other sensitive plans should be determined just by an official.
Currently, they tend to be decided by the council’s cross-party Planning Committee which meets in public. Anyone can listen to the debate in the chamber or on a webcast.
Concerns about the changes include the prospect of sensitive decisions, with potential conflicts of interest, being taken behind closed doors, giving rise to criticisms about a lack of transparency.
And, although planning decisions are taken in line with the law, another concern is that unpopular decisions could be identified solely and unfairly with the political party in charge of the council.
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald, a long-standing Planning Committee member and former chair of the committee, said: “I should imagine the Planning Committee would meet about once a year now.
“The undemocratic policy of the Labour government will put enormous responsibility on the particular officer and nominated person. This is the sort of policy that one would expect from Moscow or Beijing. Shame on them.”
Councillor Thomson said that the council’s Planning Committee was expected to continue to meet at Hove Town Hall on the first Wednesday of each month.
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh recalled being on the Planning Committee when members “revolted” over plans to replace the green tiles on the Spanish Lady pub, in Saltdean.
Councillor Fishleigh said: “The pub said: ‘We can’t find any green tiles.’
“I remember former council leader Dan Yates literally googling in the meeting … (He said) ‘of course you can buy them. I’m looking at them right now.’
“Luckily for us, we now have a neighbourhood plan so our green roofs are protected.”
Independent councillor Samer Bagaeen, a professor of planning, was also against the changes, saying that he supported high standards and transparent decision-making.
Councillor Bagaeen said: “The document claims to reinforce councillors’ community engagement role. In practice, it risks doing the opposite.
“It repeatedly warns members against expressing firm views, campaigning, lobbying colleagues or developing informal working relationships with officers.
“The cumulative message is not ‘engage carefully’. It is ‘keep your distance and say as little as possible’. That is not healthy local democracy.”
The council’s amended constitution says: “Councillors, the public and other organisations will not be permitted to lobby the nominated official or councillor asking them to take an application before the committee.
“This includes the Conservation Advisory Group or Disabled Access Advisory Group.”
After the meeting, one observer said that the council’s constitution was in contrast to the law as set out in a High Court judgment in a judicial review known as R (Holborn Studios) v the London Borough of Hackney.
The ruling said: “It would be extremely difficult to justify as proportionate the discouragement, prohibition or prevention of communication between public and the councillors representing them which was otherwise in accordance with the law.
“Receiving communications from objectors to an application for planning permission is an important feature of freedom of expression in connection with democratic decision-taking and in undertaking this aspect of local authority business.”
The council said that its constitution was being amended to reflect the new national rules set out in the Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026.
The new rules come into force on Saturday 31 October.
Yet another Crime against Democracy which wasn’t in the local Labour manifesto in May 2023. Ms Sankey’s administration is turning Brighton and Hove into a communist state by the week. Her whipped victims, aka Councillors, need to raise a Vote of No Confidence in her pronto, if they are not to be implicated in their leader’s Crimes against Democracy. Three councils are already suing her for her proposed land grab and the city is in danger of ultimately losing everything including its Unitary status. She must go and so must her enablers.
Did you miss the line where the council is implementing a new law – like all councils across the country are?
How could a law passed in 2026 be in a council manifesto for a 2023 local council election?
Jimmy, other than your comment, can you think of a fantastic way to demonstrate this country’s falling academic standards?
The planning system is one of the most open parts of local government. Applications are publicly and freely available, anyone can comment on them and their comments too are available. This is a legislative change and there is nothing BHCC can do about it. The idea that decisions are made in private is nonsense. The reality is that around 95% of planning applications are already decided by qualified officers in line with national and local policies. The rogue decisions occur when planning committees decide to overturn sound officer recommendations that are in line with planning policy. To some extent, this might help to stop that.
Labour is Anti-democracy, plus they are taking political prisoners but terrorists are allowed bail. Our local council go through the motions to make you think our opinion matters but they ignore us. Thats why the stupid red route and new cycle lanes are going ahead.
Burnham told lies to a Leave area to get into power so he will be very lucky to get in again which is why he will be thinking twice about an early election.
I would not compare them to Russia but North Korea.
Bobbi, I tried to find something resembling a critique of the changes but all I found was your tinfoil hat.
BHCC cannot turn guidance into primary legislation. It is just guidance.
For Schedule 2 applications, for example, there is a presumption of officer delegation, but the regulations provide a gateway through which an application can be referred to committee. The guidance expressly says:
“It is for individual local planning authorities to put in place their own arrangements for how the consideration of cases for referral to committee will operate in practice.”
It also says councils can decide which Schedule 2 applications need to be considered for referral.
That means Sankey and Co are obviously intending to use the new changes to shut the electorate out of all meaningful objection and consultation.
Let us hope the Manchester United scandal brings this whole corrupt government down by 31st October. Planning laws were put there for a reason and so were Greenbelt protections.