There’s a fascinating, and frankly, quite common frustration brewing in local councils across the UK, and it’s been brought sharply into focus right here in Bolton. An article in The Bolton News today highlights comments from Kearsley Labour Cllr Debbie Newall during a recent planning committee meeting, where she asked, quite pointedly, “what’s the point of this committee?”
Her intervention came after plans for a new Aldi superstore in Horwich, previously rejected, were resubmitted and ultimately approved. Cllr Newall feels the committee is increasingly just there to “rubber stamp policy compliant applications” rather than truly represent constituents. She argues that elected members are there to represent the people, and when their initial decisions are seemingly overridden by the threat of appeals or officer advice, it makes their role feel redundant.
She’s not alone in this sentiment. Westhoughton Liberal Democrat member David Wilkinson echoed her views, even touching on the public perception of corruption, explaining how developers often simply adhere to planning policy, leaving a “massive gap” between what the public wants and what the planning system allows.
You can read the full article here to get all the details: Councillor airs concerns over Bolton Council planning committee
But is Cllr Newall right? Does the committee really have no point? Or is there a deeper, more complex reality at play that shapes these decisions?
The Ideal vs. The Reality: Why Planning Decisions Aren’t Always Popular
It’s easy to look at a decision like the Horwich Aldi store, especially after a previous rejection, and feel like local voices aren’t being heard. The public invests time in objecting, councillors listen and act, and then it seems to be overturned. This is precisely where the frustration stems from, and it’s a feeling shared by many local politicians and residents alike.
However, understanding the actual “point” of a planning committee, and the significant constraints they operate under, reveals a system designed for a specific purpose – one that often clashes with immediate public desires.
So, what is the point of a planning committee?
- Democratic Oversight (with a Catch): Yes, councillors are elected to represent you. The committee is their platform to scrutinise applications, ask tough questions, and bring local knowledge to the table. They do ensure public concerns are voiced and considered.
- Balancing Act: Committees must weigh many “material considerations” – everything from traffic and noise to environmental impact, design, and economic benefits. It’s about finding a balance, not just saying “yes” or “no.”
- Applying Local Nuance: While policies are set nationally and locally, councillors can apply specific local knowledge to how those policies impact a particular site or community.
- Checks and Balances: The committee acts as a check on council officers’ recommendations, ensuring that decisions aren’t made solely by unelected officials. There’s meant to be a robust debate.
The Unseen Hand: Appeals and Costly Lessons
The key to understanding Cllr Newall’s frustration, and the perceived “rubber stamping,” lies in the planning appeal system and the devastating financial consequences of getting it wrong.
As the Bolton News article highlights, Bolton Council has learned this the hard way:
- Hulton Park: A deeply unpopular refusal was overturned by a government inspector in 2022, who deemed the council’s decision “no rational authority would have made.” This cost Bolton taxpayers a staggering £467,700 in legal expenses, awarded against the council.
- Horwich Golf Club: Another unanimous refusal by the committee was also overturned on appeal, leading to a 276-home estate being approved despite local opposition.
When a council refuses a planning application that is “policy compliant” – meaning it broadly adheres to national planning frameworks and the local development plan – the applicant can appeal. If the council loses that appeal, and especially if the inspector finds their refusal was “unreasonable,” they can be forced to pay the developer’s significant legal and professional costs.
This isn’t theoretical; it’s a very real threat that can drain millions from local budgets, money that would otherwise fund schools, social care, or road repairs.
The Councillor’s Dilemma
This puts councillors like Debbie Newall in an unenviable position. They are elected to represent their communities and listen to objections. Yet, they are also responsible stewards of public money. If their planning officers advise that refusing a policy-compliant application would be legally indefensible and highly likely to lose on appeal (incurring massive costs), the committee often faces a choice:
- Refuse anyway, represent the public outcry, and risk a huge financial penalty that comes directly from taxpayers, only for the development to be built anyway.
- Approve the application, acknowledge its policy compliance, save the council potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds, but face the public perception of “rubber stamping” and not listening.
It’s a no-win situation that pits democratic sentiment against legal and financial realities. The “point” of the committee, then, becomes not just to say “yes” or “no,” but to make decisions that are legally robust, financially responsible, and ultimately defensible within the national planning framework. This often means swallowing a bitter pill when a development is unpopular but lawful.
Cllr Newall’s comments are a valuable insight into the immense pressure local councillors face. They highlight the fundamental tension at the heart of our planning system, where local democracy meets national policy and economic realities. It’s a debate that extends far beyond Bolton, reflecting a national challenge in how we shape our communities.
What do you think? Is there a better way for local voices to be heard within the current planning system? Share your thoughts in the comments below.