What's stopping them speaking?

NORMALLY, you wouldn't expect your local councillor to be a shrinking violet. People who stand for public office tend to like expressing their opinions, especially when the matter at hand is something as juicy as a local planning row.

Why, then, the curious silence of Osbaldwick councillor Jonathan Morley on one of the biggest issues to affect his ward for many a year - the proposed 540-home Derwenthorpe model village?

And why the uncharacteristic reticence of Fishergate's Green councillor Mark Hill about Connaught Court? Coun Hill's Green colleague Andy D'Agorne took his protest about felling protected trees in the grounds of the Fulford old people's home so seriously he had to be forcibly removed by police.

From Mark Hill, not a squeak - either on the issue of the trees, or of the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution's plans to build new homes in the grounds.

There is a reason for this apparent unwillingness of normally outspoken councillors to put their heads above the parapet. It is called the Code Of Good Practice For Councillors.

The aim of the code is twofold: to eliminate the possibility of corruption - of bungs, backhanders or even the old boys' network - playing a part in planning decisions; and to ensure that when decisions are made, they are made fairly and impartially by councillors whose minds are not already made up, and who are in full possession of the facts.

Perfectly good aims.

The effect, however, is often to gag councillors from speaking out in advance of a planning committee. Because if they are a member of the committee that will decide on an particular application and they do speak out beforehand - either for or against an application - they will lose their right to vote.

Coun Hill sees the code as an attack on one of the fundamental principles of local democracy: the right to represent the views of local residents.

"They are killing democracy," he said. "And they are killing something even more important, which is respect for the political process.

"According to the code it would be wrong for me to go and talk to a group of residents about their concerns, and wrong for me to represent them and say to other councillors what concerns residents of the area had. I would lose my vote for doing that.

"But the whole purpose of being a councillor, surely, is to influence the process and to make sure voices can be heard? It is ridiculous."

There are ways around the problem.

The ban on expressing an opinion about a planning application in advance of a planning meeting only applies to councillors who will have a vote at that meeting.

In Fishergate, the two Green councillors, Andy D'Agorne and Mark Hill, reached an agreement on Connaught Court. Coun D'Agorne sits on the area planning committee; Coun Hill sits on the city's main planning committee.

Thanks to the scale of the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution's plans, it was clear the application would have to come before the city council's main planning committee, not the area committee. Coun D'Agorne, who does not sit on the main committee, therefore had no vote to lose and no reason not to speak out against the plans.

"So I agreed with Coun Hill that I would be the one to take a position on it rather than him," he said. That leaves Coun Hill, who has expressed no opinion on the plans, free to exercise his vote when they come before committee.

No such deal-making was possible for Coun Morley when it came to articulating local people's views about Derwenthorpe. The Liberal Democrat is the only councillor to represent Osbaldwick ward. With the controversial development scheduled to come before a special meeting of the city council's main planning committee - of which Coun Morley is a member - by the end of the month, he is understandably reluctant to forfeit his vote by speaking out.

His unwillingness to take a stance has angered many of his constituents. But it is vital that a planning committee member should not be thought to have already made up his mind about an issue he will be asked to decide on, he says. "The less I say in advance, the easier it will be for me to maintain that I have not been expressing any views."

It is always going to be a difficult balance to strike between ensuring the planning process is clean and impartial, and permitting councillors to speak up on controversial developments and represent their constituents' views.

So, does the code get that balance right?

Opinions are divided. Ann Reid, the council's executive member for planning and transport, and Dave Merrett, the Labour group leader who is himself a former planning committee chairman, both think it does.

The system may not be perfect, and it does sometimes put councillors in a difficult position, Coun Reid accepts. "But I also feel we do need to be objective when making decisions.

"Planning is a quasi-judicial process in that you must be seen, when you're deciding a planning application, to be fair and impartial."

If a councillor has already made their mind up about an application before coming along to committee and hearing all the evidence, it is very difficult to claim their decision was objective, she says.

Coun Merrett, who was planning committee chairman when York drew up its code of practice, agrees. Councillors who find themselves in the position of Coun Morley have two very clear courses of action open to them, he points out. They can either forfeit their right to vote on the application, in which case there is nothing to stop them campaigning on behalf of their constituents: or they can keep quiet and keep an open mind until they hear all the evidence at committee, then exercise their right to vote. The choice is up to them.

He also accepts that the system is not perfect. "But nobody has put forward a better arrangement."

Others, however, agree with Coun Hill that the system stifles the democratic process.

"It is not right," says John Galvin, former leader of the Tory group on York council and now Conservative constituency agent for York and the Vale of York.

"Planning matters cause as much distress as anything and I think it is democratically wrong if a councillor cannot represent the views of his ward members on planning issues.

"It begs the question what the job of planning committee members really is. It seems it is developing into being just a rubber-stamping exercise."

Alison Sinclair, chairman of the York Conservation Panel, is also uneasy. "I understand the desire to keep the planning process clean, which is the purpose of these rules and regulations," she says. "But I think they are overzealous. The ability to debate these issues in advance is very important."

Massive development plans for Hungate come under the spotlight this week. A planning application for 720 homes, plus offices and leisure development, has yet to be discussed by councillors.

Meanwhile, a new planning brief for the site has been issued.

Project planning officer Derek Gauld will attend a meeting of the York Open Planning Forum to discuss Hungate at the Central Methodist Church, St Saviourgate, at 7.30pm tonight. Everyone welcome.

:: The Code of Practice

The Standards Board For England required local authorities to adopt a Code Of Conduct governing the behaviour of elected members in 2002. It published specific guidance for council members about how to deal with lobby groups and possible conflicts of interest last October. The guidance makes clear that planning is "particularly sensitive".

York already had its own code of conduct before 2002. This is now supplemented by a Code Of Good Practice aimed at councillors involved in the planning process.

The Code Of Good Practice makes clear that if a councillor on a planning committee openly supports the views of objectors to (or supporters of) an application before it is heard, it would be "extremely difficult" for them to claim they could then make an objective decision about that application.

Councillors who are approached by those with strong views about an application have three options, the Code says:

They can refer them to a councillor who is not a member of the planning committee;

They can refer concerns to council officers to be investigated, while stressing they cannot take sides themselves; or

They can speak out on behalf of constituents who have concerns, in which case they forfeit the right to vote on that application.

If a councillor who had previously made opposition to or support for a planning application public did subsequently vote on that application at planning committee, he or she could be reported to the Standards Board (Committee) for misconduct. The decision of the committee would also be open to legal challenge.

Updated: 11:10 Thursday, January 20, 2005