Eastbourne councillors ‘reluctantly’ back planning changes
A group of Eastbourne councillors has agreed to ‘recommend with reluctance’ constitutional changes linked to planning.
Eastbourne Borough Council’s planning committee considered a report linked to the new National Scheme of Delegation, which came into effect on October 31 as result of changes in national legislation.
In broad terms, the scheme sets out new national rules about what types of planning applications can be decided by committees and what types of proposals must be decided by officers alone.
Critics of the scheme say it erodes local democracy, particularly as a result of loss of “call-in” powers.
Planning committee members were being asked to make a recommendation about changes to be made to the council’s constitution, which are necessary to reflect these new rules.
Before making a decision, councillors asked what would happen if the authority refused to adopt the constitutional changes.
The committee’s legal advisor Helen Monaghan said: “If you didn’t accept this and we continued contrary to what national legislation says, then any approval or refusal of a planning permission application may then be subject to quashing by judicial review (JR).”
She added: “There are [also] financial risks of a JR being brought against decisions being made by a committee who are not lawfully making decisions, because it is contrary to the national legislation.”
In this context, adoption of the changes were repeatedly described as a “fait accompli”.
Ultimately, the majority of the committee agreed to recommend the constitutional changes to full council.
Some committee members had argued against this decision, however.
Cllr Jane Lamb (Con), said: “This new system … is being handed down to us as a way of reducing local people’s input into what is being built in their town.
“It is an insult to the idea that you vote for people who are going to represent you, because they are going to find it very difficult to represent you and the complexity of the new system, no matter how many tiny safeguards you put in, makes it even more difficult.”
She added: “I have great respect for the head of planning and the chair of this committee — and they are in a dilemma also — but I do not feel at all like I can support, however reluctantly.”