Planning Decisions: Is There A Case For Private Voting?
Planning decisions are frequently overtly political. Not always along party or philosophical lines, but at the heart of deciding whether someone (an applicant) should achieve their wishes against the desire (an objector) of another.
The language used to come to a decision often disguises the political nature of the decision - "rounded judgement"; "on balance"; "giving appropriate weight". Such nuanced phrases are perhaps necessary to try to retain an objective approach to what are often subjective considerations.
When an application is still at the stage of officer level negotiations, the use of such language is often helpful to find areas of common ground and to identify the defining issues. Such nuances are often lost, however, when an application has progressed from officer discussions to planning committee. This is especially the case where the proposal has generated considerable local controversy, possibly split a local community, and where a decision one way or another will result in distinct large groups of winners and losers.
As is widely practiced, the process to reach a decision at the local level is for planning committees to hear the cases of supporters and objectors, ask questions and then openly debate the issues as defined by each councillor. There may be a disjoint - and there frequently is - between the issues set out by the planning officer, and a councillor who may be operating to a different agenda. At the end of the debate, normally a vote takes place based on either the officer's recommendation or another recommendation that may have been put to the committee during the debate. The vote is nearly always - and I have never seen it done differently - undertaken by a show of hands.
The question arises whether committee members can be expected to exercise their vote without reference to the politics of the moment. Where an application is before them that has generated heat during the debate, and where members of the public may have been vocal in their support or objection, the chamber will be infused with tensions and emotions from all sides of the arguments. A public vote by a show of hands in such circumstances will almost always - and quite understandably - be a play to the gallery.
Has the time come for voting on planning decisions to make use of technology and be conducted as a private vote? The value of the secret ballot is part of western democracy. It is a fundamental condition of citizenship as it forms the cornerstone of political privacy. Without political privacy, decision makers would be prone to intimidation. Although modern technology is not a requirement for a secret ballot - its most basic form can be a blank piece of paper with a "yes" or "no" to be written upon it - technology would allow secret ballots to be undertaken quickly, and decisions to be recorded easily in accordance with procedural regulations.
Council members are increasingly subject to the pressures exerted by local communities through the use of information technology to come to a decision. The political nature of planning decisions under certain circumstances is increasingly exposed. Perhaps the time has come to enable voting members at planning committee to exercise their decisions in a way that enables them to do so privately. The committee can still meet in public, it can openly debate the issues - however members choose to define them - but members should be allowed the right that underpins all else in western democracies, namely, that their political decision should be made in private.
*Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any part of Savills plc or any of its associated companies, nor are any assumptions made reflective of the position of Savills plc and its associated companies.