Leeds Council accused of 'reducing transparency' as planning objections removed from public view

Objections and supportive comments for new proposals have disappeared from public view, as part of a wider overhaul of Leeds’ planning service. Councillors from across the political spectrum have condemned the move, which is being trialled for an initial six months, with the new leader of the Conservative Opposition urging the council to “think again”.

The local authority said “antagonistic” responses were being posted on its online planning portal more frequently, meaning its staff have to spend more time vetting and redacting comments. In an email sent to councillors last month, the planning service said it was ceasing other behind-the-scenes activities too to “concentrate on areas which add value to the planning process”.

But Green Party councillor Ed Carlisle, who represents the Hunslet and Riverside ward, said: “This might not seem dramatically bad, but some aspects of these proposals – especially the blanket loss of public comments on planning applications – is worrying, reducing transparency within key democratic processes.

“However, we have to see this within its proper context: just one more result of the punishing and unnecessary austerity agenda from national government. They’re bleeding us all dry.”

The new leader of Leeds’ Conservative group, Councillor Alan Lamb, also condemned the move, suggesting it had been made “without full consultation”.

“I am concerned it will result in reduced transparency in the planning process,” he said. “For years people have been able to view details of a planning application in their community, comment on the proposals, and view what other people have said, both for and against.

“By ceasing to publish public comments, I am concerned that the decision-making process on planning applications will be less visible and less accessible to members of the public.

“I accept there are challenges associated with ensuring compliance data protection rules, but in my view the council must come up with a solution that allows it to continue to publish public representations for all to see. I am calling on the administration to think again.”

Last October, the council’s head of planning, David Feeney told a scrutiny board that his department didn’t have enough to money to carry out all of its duties. He said then that a backlog of post-Covid planning applications and confusing messages from the government over reforms were contributing to the service’s woes.

A council spokesperson said: “There is no statutory requirement to publish public comments on applications and there has been an increase in vociferous comments being posted online. We do have residents contacting us who are reluctant to make comments for fear of repercussions of doing so, and in some instances, the system has become a platform for antagonistic correspondence between applicants and objectors.

“There are also issues whereby applicants amend proposals in response to third-party comments rather than the council’s requirements based on planning policy, creating delays and confusion.

The spokesperson added: “GDPR issues arising from these comments have increased the staff resource needed to redact, publish, and deal with any consequent complaints, and present a significant financial and reputational risk to the council if we are found to be at fault for a data breach.

“Some councils have never published comments and an increasing number are ceasing to do so. As ever, comments based on material planning matters are invited, and will continue to be summarised in the officer’s report and taken into account in the decision-making process.”