Your say / planning
‘We need to restore trust in Bristol’s planning system’
The petition about loss of confidence in Bristol’s planning system, which currently has more than 3,600 signatures from Bristol residents, was presented at the Full Council meeting on Tuesday.
Given the limited time available, it was only possible to raise four broad concerns and refer to some examples which are set out below.
The first concern relates to excessive lobbying and improper influence.
is needed now More than ever
When Mayor Rees accepted an all-expenses paid trip to Kuala Lumpur from YTL in 2017, and then soon afterwards cancelled Bristol’s city centre arena, there were concerns about improper influence.
And concerns about excessive lobbying have continued, particularly in relation to major sites.
Recently, the Broadwalk scandal revealed alleged collusion between the developer, the mayor’s office and the chair of Development Control A Committee, Richard Eddy, to overturn a unanimous decision to refuse planning permission.
Local Government Association guidance is clear: planning decisions must not be made on a party political basis, and the use of political whips to influence the outcome of a planning application amounts to maladministration.
But observations of planning committee meetings suggest that some councillors are being influenced to vote on a pre-determined, party political basis.
And party political behaviour was evident when councillors on Development Control B Committee announced recently – as a party group, not as individual members – that they would not be attending meetings.
The planning committee meeting on Yew Tree Farm after which Labour councillors announced their boycott – photo: Rob Browne
The Urban Living supplementary planning document looked promising when it was first published, but it was immediately undermined when approval was granted for the tower-block development at Totterdown Bridge, breaching the SPD.
Similarly, the Mead Street Development Brief was undermined when the proposal for the former Bart Spices site was approved against the officer’s recommendation.
Policies relating to ecology and biodiversity are also subverted. Examples include the sale of Brislington Meadows to Homes England, permitting harm to the ancient hedgerow and Site of Nature Conservation Interest at Yew Tree Farm and accepting dubious biodiversity net gain calculations.
Much of this is justified as addressing the housing crisis, but the provision of truly ‘affordable’ housing has been disappointing, and we should not undermine good planning policy in the name of #gettingstuffdone.
View this post on Instagram
Another concern relates to misrepresentation and even bullying.
Members of the public are being misrepresented, and people with legitimate objections to development proposals are being characterised as ‘anti-housing campaigners’ and ‘self-styled environmentalists’.
Councillors are also being undermined. Some of this may be passed off as political banter, but it should not be part of the planning process.
And it seems to have become increasingly unpleasant.
I was shocked when the cabinet member for housing delivery, supported by the mayor’s office, seemed to be encouraging the anger of football fans against a councillor who asked that proposals for Bristol Rovers’ new stand be considered by a planning committee.
Surely Bristol deserves better. So what can be done?
I briefly referred to four issues: excessive lobbying and improper influence; party political interference and pre-determination; selective application of policies; and misrepresentation and bullying.
An honest appraisal of the extent of these problems is required.
Thousands of people across the city are sufficiently worried to have signed the petition, and the debate in full council barely scratched the surface of current concerns.
As we head towards local elections and the new committee system, I hope Bristol’s politicians will give time to considering how to restore trust and confidence in Bristol’s planning system.
The Local Government Association has produced a document entitled ‘Probity in planning’; careful consideration of that document, and manifesto commitments to abide by its contents, would be a good place to start.
Suzanne Audrey is the lead petitioner for the petition, ‘Loss of confidence in Bristol’s planning system’
Main photo: Mersina Booth
Read next:
Our top newsletters emailed directly to you
