Way back in the year 2000, the Labour Government passed the Local Government Act that gave birth to the Executive (Cabinet) system.
At about the same time, Pembrokeshire County Council revised its constitution to take account of the fact that almost all its activities were now the responsibility of the Executive – the so-called Cabinet functions.
While these changes were underway, the council also revised what is known as “The scheme of delegation” for the planning system.
Clearly, as it is not practicable for the planning committee to consider every application received by the council, they are divided into those to be determined by officers under delegated powers and those – usually major developments – that need the scrutiny of the planning committee.
One of the major changes in 2000 was the removal of the automatic right for the local member to have an application withdrawn from the scheme of delegation for determination by the committee.
Back in the day, the old boys (because it was mainly they) didn’t spend too much time with the detailed examination of terms of reference, schemes of delegation, and that sort of thing – so they adopted these new arrangements without demure.
However, they quickly realised that they had surrendered one of their main vote-winners – the ability to wangle a planning consent for one of their constituents, or, occasionally, to put the skids under a proposal that was within policy, but unpopular with the nimbies in their ward.
The way this was done was to remove it from the hands of a professional planning officer, who might be expected to follow the letter of the planning policy, and place it in the orbit of councillors on the planning committee, where, on the basis of what former planning director Roger Anderson used to refer to as “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”, their mates could be relied on to do “the right thing”.
The sort of practice that lumbered the planning system with a bad name and led to the accusation that what mattered was “not what you know, but who you know”.
The powers that be were reluctant to go back to the system of an automatic right, so, to appease what Mr Anderson used to refer to as “the bungalow farmers”, they conjured up something called the Planning Delegation Panel (PDP) to which members could apply if they wished to have an application transferred from the delegation scheme to the committee.
The PDP had all the appearances of a properly constituted democratic body (politically balanced, terms of reference, and the rest) operating under the rule of law.
To qualify for removal from the delegation scheme an application had to meet at least one of the three strict conditions set out below.
1. the development has an adverse planning impact on more than immediate neighbours or other electoral divisions. [This ground is available to all members]
2. the decision on a proposed development’s impact within the local community is finely balanced between competing interests or is complex and sensitive and would benefit from a public examination of the merits. [This ground is only available to the Local Member]
3. that issues are raised which highlight conflicting planning policy issues. [This ground is only available to the Local Member]
Call-in applications are usually made when the local member concludes that the planning officer is going to make a decision contrary to their desires and they hope to persuade their pals on the planning committee to take a different view.
It is always stressed that members of the Panel should restrict themselves to consideration of these three criteria and that the planning merits of the planning application are for another time and place.
The case before the PDP earlier this week was a retrospective application for a new beer garden at the Masonic Hall in Milford Haven, which had been refused back in 2024 and was now resubmitted in slightly different form.
The planning officer’s report stated that the application didn’t meet any of the criteria and that it should, therefore, remain within the delegation scheme.
One of the issues on which the earlier application had been refused was that a wall built to retain the raised garden had encroached onto the pavement and the Trunk Road Agency (TRA) had objected on the grounds that this led to an unacceptable narrowing of the footway.
It is not entirely clear from this most recent planning application whether this defect has been addressed, or whether the TRA had dropped its objection.
There were two speakers in favour of removing the application from the delegation scheme and sending it to the planning committee: Cllrs Phil Kidney and Mel Phillips.
Cllr Kidney:
“I have sympathy with the applicant. The work that has gone on here is nowhere as large as the stuff that has gone on 200 yards down the road. He’s being punished. This would be a huge asset to his business. It seems to have stopped and the other one down the road seems to have carried on. It’s unfair. The applicant is not represented by anyone here today. Are we going to hear from the applicant. I’m disappointed nobody’s here to represent him.”
I think Cllr Kidney was referring to work carried out in the beer garden at the Lord Nelson further along the same road, though this has no bearing on the three principles which the panel was supposed to be considering, and, in any case, there has been a beer garden at the Lord Nelson for donkey’s years, and it doesn’t encroach onto the pavement.
Cllr Phillips:
“This should be referred back to the Committee because we just need the business. Milford isn’t exactly prosperous, is it? We need all the business we can get, so why can’t this be passed? It’s bringing trade into Milford and I think that’s a very good idea.”
It is difficult to find anything there that bears any resemblance to the three criteria that the panel is legally bound to consider.
However the words “why can’t this be passed?” in Cllr Phillips’ remarks is telling. Firstly, it is not the business of the planning delegation panel to pass the planning application or even to consider its merits – that is a matter for either an officer under delegated powers or the planning committee – and second, provided it accords with planning policy, there is no reason whatsoever why consent shouldn’t eventually be granted – after all, planning officers award hundreds of consents each year under delegated powers.
Of course, you might argue that a planning application for a beer garden in Milford Haven is nothing to get excited about and, up to a point, you would be right.
But this involves some important principles.
I suppose if you asked what was the most important feature of democracy most people would say elections, but Putin is elected and so, for that matter, is Trump. But neither of them is a great fan of the rule of law.
I would argue that our elected representatives are given power on condition that they use it to promote justice. And it seems clear to me that you can’t have a system of justice unless you have a set of rules that are equally applicable to all.
And that’s why the rule of law is so important in any democracy.
What Aristotle referred to as rule by laws and not by men.
Basically it is in line with a principle that no right-thinking person would dispute – that planning permissions should depend on whether they are within the planning policy and not on how many mates you have on the planning committee – though I’m always surprised by how many people who should know better are not convinced.
Anyone interested in the quality of local journalism might like to compare the report by your BBC-sponsored “Local Democracy Reporter” in both the Pembrokeshire Herald and the Western Telegraph with what actually happened at the meeting.
Hint: don’t read both, because they are identical.