Power grab or planning reform? The troubling motives behind Wealden District Council’s Alliance led planning committee changes

Wealden District Council’s recent decision to reduce the size of its planning committees from 12 to 9 members is not just an administrative adjustment, it’s a cynical and calculated political manoeuvre that undermines the democratic process and raises significant concerns about transparency, accountability, and the centralisation of power. Moreover, the working party that was responsible for the Constitutional updates had little in the way of discussion on this issue. It was however, discussed at length in a previous Audit Finance and Governance working party, where it was abundantly clear that in a 45-member council, a planning committee of only 9 could not possibly give an appropriate level of democratic voice to the electorate in terms of planning matters. That says nothing about the competence of the ruling group members (something I’ll get to below).

A recent post on a planning focused Facebook group saw the Green Party Deputy Leader of Wealden, Rachel Millward clumsily trying to defend the indefensible with predictable public response.

A shift in numbers, a shift in control

Previously, the Planning Committee structure allowed 12 councillors to participate in key decisions. Under this arrangement, the ruling “Alliance for Wealden”, composed primarily of Green Party and Liberal Democrat councillors, held 7 seats, while opposition parties held 5. This provided a relatively balanced forum for planning decisions.

The new 9-member structure changes that. The Alliance retains 5 seats, and opposition councillors are reduced to just 4. While this might appear proportionate on paper, the practical effect is the concentration of power into the hands of a tighter majority, with fewer voices available to challenge or scrutinise proposals. This move gives the Alliance a firmer grip on outcomes, all while cloaking the change under the guise of efficiency. Indeed, the new committee quorum of only three members could, in certain circumstances, further concentrate decisions on important applications to the detriment of the residents affected.

This appears to be an overt attempt to consolidate control, (especially in light of the Green Party and Liberal Democrats’) repeated rhetoric about openness and inclusion. The reality is now beginning to look very different. The influence of the Labour Party (though underrepresented numerically), has become more apparent in the ideological direction of the council. This change echoes Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s own dismissive remarks where he labelled planning committees as “NIMBYs and blockers.” Wealden appears to be internalising this top-down contempt for local voices.

Given that the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (Section 15) and The Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 were established to prevent the monopolisation of local government decisions by a single political faction, this change is highly questionable.

A constitution that discourages dissent

The new Constitution adopted in concert with the committee restructure adds to the concern. It now requires that if a councillor wishes to vote against an officer’s recommendation, the following steps must be taken:

• Reasons must be recorded as part of the motion.
• Meetings may be adjourned to discuss these reasons.
• Where there’s concern about appeal risks or validity, the decision may be deferred.
• A recorded vote must be taken.
• The councillor moving and seconding the motion will represent the Council at appeal.

This framework does not support open decision-making; it chills it like an arctic blast. By seemingly placing the burden squarely on lay councillors to justify, defend, and even represent decisions against professional officer advice, the process introduces legal and reputational risk for any who dare to disagree.

Rather than empowering elected representatives to bring their community’s voice to the table, the new constitution appears designed to frighten them into compliance. It subtly shifts blame for appeal losses onto politicians, which is inappropriate given that councillors are elected to exercise judgment, not defer blindly to bureaucracy.

“We’re short of talent” – so why concentrate power?

Council Leader James Partridge has previously claimed, “We’re short of talent, actually, across the council.” the decision to reduce the number of voices on planning committees is even more indefensible. If talent is indeed scarce, concentrating critical planning decisions in the hands of fewer people, some of whom may lack planning expertise (or even possibly a basic ability to assimilate facts or reason), only increases the risk of flawed, rushed, or legally questionable decisions.

This paradox is emblematic of a leadership clique that is more interested in control than competence.

Planning committees are not rubber stamps

Planning committees are not minor subgroups—they are statutory bodies with responsibility for shaping the district’s future. The Planning Advisory Service’s 2025 Committee Survey and Self-Assessment Toolkit both underscore that well-functioning planning committees thrive on diversity of opinion, experience, and geography. They emphasise the importance of challenge and scrutiny in ensuring quality outcomes.

A reduction in size undermines that diversity and weakens the committee’s ability to reflect the full spectrum of resident interests. Fewer people mean fewer ideas, less scrutiny, and an increased risk of groupthink, especially if councillors are made to fear repercussions for independent thinking.

The substitute system: flawed and legally dubious

Adding insult to injury is the limitation of just five substitute members across the planning committees. This arbitrary cap raises further questions about political balance and resilience.

The PAS briefing on managing substitutes in planning committees highlights that the use of substitutes is itself a contentious practice. Substitutes can dilute accountability and knowledge, particularly if they are not fully briefed on past discussions or relevant planning law. A restricted pool of substitutes, especially in a politically charged environment, can be manipulated to favour specific outcomes or exclude dissenting voices.

More worryingly, this new system may well breach the spirit (if not the letter) of political balance laws. It grants excessive discretion to the majority coalition to pick and choose participation, further diminishing checks and balances.

Undermining public trust

Reducing committee size, introducing procedural hurdles to challenge officer recommendations, and limiting substitutes all serve one purpose: to centralise power. But at what cost?

The public’s trust in planning processes is fragile. When decisions appear to be made by a small, closed group that resists scrutiny, residents are right to feel disenfranchised. When dissent is discouraged and elected councillors are effectively gagged by fear of blame, democracy suffers.

A dangerous precedent

Wealden District Council’s changes to its planning committees are not reforms or improvements; they are regressions. They weaken local democracy, erode trust, and shift power away from the electorate and towards a narrow political group operating behind a veneer of legality.

This is not how good planning decisions are made. And this is not how accountable local government should function.

If Wealden is serious about good governance, it must reverse this move, restore broader representation to planning committees, and stop punishing councillors for doing the job they were elected to do: to question, to scrutinise, and to decide on behalf of their residents, not on instruction from officers or party leadership.

Many in the Alliance ran on a promise that they would control inappropriate development and limit housing numbers. Two years on and with Wealden still without a current local plan and the Labour government pushing for yet more houses (~1400 per annum vs the previous Conservative advisory number of 1,186), it is more important now than ever before that residents are represented in every council committee by the people best able to do so. This recent planning committee move goes squarely against that principle ironically makes it harder for the Alliance led Council to keep their promises. Did they even mean what they said on the doorstep when campaigning? Residents in Horam & Punnetts Town will shortly have an opportunity to express their view in an upcoming by-election after a Green Party Councillor resigned.

I’ll end with a small comment on Wealden’s planning team, which I think does a fantastic job in a changing landscape (no pun intended). As councillors, however, we are elected to represent residents’ views (albeit within a statutory framework when it comes to planning). I think officers would acknowledge that robust planning committee challenge often leads to better decisions (including tightening of conditions or considerations of factors that might have been missed or perhaps given less emphasise in the planning balance than perhaps they should have been). It’s a shame that the Green – Labour – Lib Dem Alliance can’t seem to reconcile that inconvenient fact.