23 Jun 2025
A motion which could have restricted the scrutiny of planning applications at SADC has failed to succeed.
A group of Lib Dems including Cllrs Edgar Hill, Jamie Day, Sharon Hollingsworth and Josie Madoc wanted to limit both the number of councillors who could speak at the planning policy and climate committee, and how long they were allowed to have their say, apparently in a bid to improve efficiency.
The motion stated: “The proposed changes provide clarity in a process which supports transparency and ensures the council remains effective.”
But a cross-party challenge led by Conservative group leader Cllr Matt Cowley saw the motion rejected.
Cllr Cowley said afterwards: “It is important that councillors can represent the views of our residents on planning applications. Given the chair of the planning committee already has the power to use their discretion to limit speaking lists, this attempt to add further barriers to councillors speaking at planning was trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.
“We were told that limiting councillor contributions will be more important because of the number of large scale applications expected over the next few years – that is actually the best reason not to limit representation, so that all residents can be represented in the tough conversations ahead.
“I was pleased to secure cross-party support to neutralise this attempt to change the rules and I will keep a close eye on proposals as they progress.”
Gee Smedley from campaign group CLASH, fighting against developments in north St Albans, welcomed the final decision.
“We strongly object to the steps being taken to restrict councillor involvement on the basis that there will be more sizable development proposals coming to committee. The larger the application the broader the reach of impact on our small city.
“We strongly object to the steps being taken to restrict councillor involvement on the basis of efficiency. If councillors cannot invest the time needed to properly consider all the matters in relation to planning applications, they should step down and allow others who are willing to invest the time on behalf of residents to come forward.
“We see this as an attempt to gag the minority party councillors and objectors to applications.
“I couldn’t believe some of the comments I heard at the meeting.
“What are they trying to nip in the bud? Democracy? Who are they trying to protect against? Residents who are rightly concerned at how SADC planning is managed?
“Improve a process by limiting who can be involved and what they can say? That is no improvement.
“Edgar Hill should be sacked from his role as committee chari if he cannot understand the reasons why councillors oppose applications that impact hundreds if not thousands of people such as those by Cala and St Albans School in North St Albans. Let someone who understands the need for transparency in democracy manage the show.”
