Changes to Cardiff planning committee risk encouraging public cynicism
Read Cardiff Civic Society’s letter on changes to the planning committee which will make it harder for your voice to be heard
16 June 2026
Dear Planning Committee Members
My apologies for contacting you just before today’s Committee meeting but there has been little advance public notice of item 4 Constitutional Changes.
Today’s discussion will be followed by further consideration by the Constitutional Committee, Cabinet and full Council, but the views of Planning Committee members will carry weight in that examination, and on behalf of Cardiff Civic Society I wish to raise some initial concerns about what is proposed. We will have further comments to make as consideration continues.
The constitutional changes are presented as a response to a review of the Planning Service by Audit Wales, but that report does not specify the changes that should be made. The Audit Wales review looked only at whether the Planning Service delivered value for money. It did not ask the equally important question of how accountable that service should be to the public and to our elected representatives.
We have great concerns about the proposed restrictions to petitions. Paragraph 63 states,
It is proposed to remove the automatic requirement for any applications which are subject to a petition to be reported to Planning Committee, and replace this with a requirement that any decision where a valid petition is received should be a delegated decision requiring consultation with the Chair.
Petitioning is an essential democratic right, one recognised for centuries by Britain’s Parliament, long before universal suffrage. It is today incorporated in the formal processes of both Westminster and Senedd, neither of which makes consideration of a valid petition with sufficient signatures discretionary, as these changes would. This is a serious assault on Cardiff’s democracy and must be rejected.
Other proposed changes also seek to reduce the rights of Cardiff residents and our elected representatives to influence planning decisions while expanding the rights of planning applicants. Having addressed the Committee on several occasions, it already feels like an uphill struggle to present a case in just three minutes. A few examples of how the balance will be further shifted against objectors:
The right of elected Members to refer matters to the Planning Committee is made more discretionary (para 50, App. H) and their speaking time will be curtailed (para 81). Ward members are often presenting the concerns of their constituents.
The claim that ‘members of the public will no longer need to raise a petition in order to address the Committee on matters reported to Committee under the scheme of delegation’ (para 64) will improve democratic accountability is spurious. It does not oblige the Chair to schedule a discussion, and Appendix D shows that its intention is to give additional rights to a developer by allowing a supporter, in addition to the applicant, to address the Committee even if they lack public support.
Audit Wales deems it ‘inequitable’ that an applicant does not have the right to speak at a Planning Committee meeting, unless in response to a petitioner, and it is proposed to give that right (para 77). But in the large majority of cases the Officer is recommending approval and hence presenting the applicant’s argument. Equity requires that the applicant should have a right to address the Committee only in response to a petition or where the Officer recommends refusal.
The report recognises that there will be applications that do not meet the proposed definition of strategic importance but ‘should be determined by Planning Committee due to significant policy, material considerations or widespread local concern’ (para 32). That is welcome but will depend solely on the discretion of the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chair of Planning (para 33). Neither public petitioners nor elected representatives will have any rights on this.
We live in increasingly fraught times. There is a widespread sense of powerlessness and distrust of public institutions. Consultation processes are already viewed by many Cardiff residents with scepticism, but Cardiff Civic Society has sought to participate in local democratic processes with reasoned arguments. It is foolish to encourage public cynicism, as I fear agreeing these constitutional changes would do.
There is much more that could be said, but thank you for reading this.
Lyn Eynon
Cardiff Civic Society
