Letter to Cllr Martin Tett, Leader of Buckinghamshire Council
19th March 2025
Cllr Martin Tett
Leader Buckinghamshire Council
c/o Buckinghamshire Council
The Gateway Offices
Gatehouse Road
Aylesbury
HP19 8FF
Dear Cllr Tett
The Erosion of Democratic Transparency: Buckinghamshire Cabinet’s Decision to Remove Public Access to Planning Comments
I am writing to you as Chair of Penn & Tylers Green Residents Society, which has a long record in participating in the planning process in our local area on both individual and strategic applications.
In a move that has sparked widespread concern across Buckinghamshire, the Cabinet’s recent decision to cease publishing public comments on planning applications represents a serious setback for democratic transparency. This controversial policy has garnered criticism from residents, parish councils, and local organizations, all alarmed by the implications of sidelining public voices during a critical time when national government pressures are mounting for mass housing development.
Public Voices Silenced
Public participation has long been a cornerstone of the planning process, enabling residents, councillors, and statutory consultees like town and parish councils to contribute their insights and perspectives. These contributions, whether in support of or opposition to a planning application, inform and enrich the decision-making process. However, the removal of publicly accessible comments undermines this foundational principle, creating a barrier to transparency and accountability.
Our councillor for Penn Parish, Jonathan Waters, a former member of both the Area and Strategic Sites planning committees, was at the meeting and opposed the move. He tells us that he and fellow councillors have also taken a stand, by supporting a ‘Call In’ request, a technical device which will make the Conservative led Unitary Council reconsider the policy change highlighted the importance of public comments as an integral part of the process. He noted that such comments allow councillors and the public to identify key planning issues, ensuring decisions reflect a wide range of perspectives. At a time when government housing targets loom large, reducing public oversight is not just ill-advised—it is undemocratic. We find it ironic that in your newsletter yesterday you decry the potential lack of democracy in the planning process and then propose a detrimental change like this.
A Flawed Justification
The Cabinet’s rationale for this decision, which suggests that public representations can still be accessed via Environmental Information Requests (EIRs), has faced severe criticism. EIRs, by their nature, impose a 20-day compliance window—effectively rendering them unusable within the constrained timeframes needed for councillors or parish councils to call in planning applications. This limitation significantly hampers their constitutional right to represent their communities and challenge contentious planning proposals.
We also understand that you are suggesting that this change is because of GDPR – comments have been redacted for over a decade – why the change now? Is it possibly another cost cutting exercise disguised as something else?
Contradicting the Council’s Own Commitments
The decision also appears to conflict with Buckinghamshire Council’s own policies and constitutional principles. Paragraph 1.1 of the Council’s Constitution emphasizes the importance of public participation, stating that the Council “encourages and actively supports people getting involved in our work.” Similarly, the Statement of Community Involvement pledges to make planning consultation transparent, accessible, and inclusive—a promise that now rings hollow in light of this retrograde decision.
Call to Action
The request outlines several concerns, including the decision’s failure to align with the Constitution, Council policies, or procedures. It is a call to reaffirm the Council’s commitment to democratic values and resist the erosion of public involvement in planning.
The removal of public access to planning comments is not merely a procedural change—it is a fundamental shift away from transparency and accountability. At a time when communities are being asked to accommodate significant housing developments, this is precisely the moment to amplify, not silence, public voices. The Council must reverse this undemocratic decision and reaffirm its commitment to meaningful public engagement. Democracy, after all, thrives on participation, not exclusion.
We do hope that you will find a way to reverse this decision before the council goes into purdah ahead of the forthcoming elections, as every day which passes is detrimental to our local residents and our ability to participate in the planning process.
Yours sincerely
Madalyn Roker
Chair
Penn & Tylers Green Residents Society
info@pennandtylersgreen.org.uk