Call for return of Shrewsbury-centred planning committee

Shropshire Council is set to review the effectiveness of its planning committee structure, two years on from the controversial move to cut the number of committees from three to two.

Opposition councillors are now urging the authority to revert back to the old system by resurrecting the central planning committee, to allow Shrewsbury members to have more control over developments affecting the town.

Under the current structure, Shrewsbury applications are decided by the northern planning committee.

Meanwhile, areas in Shrewsbury and Atcham to the south of the town, including Longden, Rea Valley, Severn Valley and Burnell wards, are covered by the southern planning committee.

When the change was made in September 2019, concern was voiced that councillors from the far flung corners of north and south Shropshire would not have the necessary local knowledge to consider Shrewsbury planning applications.

Underdale councillor David Vasmer, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said this had now proven to be justified.

He said the move to abolish the central committee was politically motivated, with opposition councillors outnumbering Conservatives in the Shrewsbury area.

The current northern and southern planning committees each comprise six Conservative councillors and five from other parties.

Councillor Vasmer said: “Shropshire used to have three planning committees but the Tories didn’t like it because they could be outvoted on the central planning committee by the opposition parties, so they abolished it.

“Even Tories in Shrewsbury opposed the abolition of the central planning and a review was agreed.

“After the recent local elections the Tories have even fewer councillors in the central area but despite losing seats they have retained control of planning issues because they draw in Tory councillors from the north who don’t know Shrewsbury. That’s wrong.

“We are calling for the return of three planning committees so that local councillors can make decisions on local planning issues – decisions that should not be based on party political considerations.”

Councillor Vasmer said the number of planning applications decided by officers should also be looked at.

He said: “We believe that too many controversial decisions are delegated to officers – local communities opposing them are unable to exercise their democratic right to express their opinions.

“Controversial planning decisions should be taken openly, but the Tories prefer to have those decisions taken behind closed doors in secret at meetings where there is no record of what is said.

“Let’s have local councillors making local planning decisions in the open at meetings where community views can be expressed.”

The matter was discussed at a meeting of the place overview committee on Wednesday, and Councillor Roger Evans, former Lib Dem group leader, said town and parish councils should be asked their views as part of the review.

Councillor Evans said there was “a lot of dissatisfaction” around the number of applications decided by planning officers under delegated powers, particularly those which go against the opinion of parish councils.

He said if more applications were sent to committee to be decided by elected members, the increased workload would justify going back to the three committee structure.

Place overview committee chair Councillor Joyce Barrow said: “The [planning committee] chair and vice chair decide with the principal planning officer whether applications should go to committee, so it’s not officers deciding – there are members involved.”

The place overview committee will review the planning committee structure at its October meeting.

Council leader Lezley Picton said the move to two committees was “due to resources” and was not political.

She said: “Originally the plan was for one committee not two but it was felt, at the time, that this was a step too far.

“Many unitary councils have two planning committees, some have only one and others are moving in that direction, but I am happy with the current situation.”

Councillor Ed Potter, portfolio holder for planning, added: “The constitution sets out clearly which applications are considered by committee and to be called in must be accompanied by a material planning consideration.

“The main driver for the number of committees is usually, as Councillor Picton identifies, resources.

“The number of items on each of the agendas is comparable to other places and the length of the committee meetings does feel about right.

“I am not aware of any evidence to justify returning to three committees however this may be teased out when looked at by scrutiny which seems the right and proper way of assessing these things.”