Following questions from Maidenhead resident and local government legal analyst Andrew Hill, the Royal Borough’s Full Council has overwhelmingly agreed to investigate private planning briefing meetings. So why do these undocumented meetings potentially matter to residents, and did the Council honour its November 2024 commitment to greater transparency in planning?
Executive Summary
In November 2024, RBWM councillors voted unanimously to change the way major planning applications were discussed. The reason was straightforward: important discussions about planning applications should happen in public — not behind closed doors.
But private collective planning briefings later continued.
Concerns increased following a private briefing on 8 September 2026. Cllr Jack Douglas asked for that meeting to be recorded. His request was refused and, at the public planning meeting the following day, further questions arose about the Road Safety Audit being relied upon.
Questions from Maidenhead resident and local government legal analyst Andrew Hill have now put those meetings under the spotlight.
The key questions are:
- Which planning applications were discussed at private briefings?
- What was discussed behind closed doors?
- Were proper records kept?
- Did important information and debate then appear in the public meeting?
- Why did collective private briefings continue after the Council’s 2024 decision?
- What safeguards are needed to make sure planning decisions are open and transparent?
I therefore asked Full Council to formally investigate the practice and, the Council overwhelmingly agreed — 28 councillors voted in favour, with just two abstentions.
There has been no finding of wrongdoing, bias or unlawful decision-making. The purpose of scrutiny is to establish the facts but, residents have a right to expect important planning decisions to be open, fair and accountable.
The real debate should happen in public — not behind closed doors.
Introduction
Planning decisions can change our homes, neighbourhoods and environment for generations. They affect traffic, parking, flooding, road safety, air quality, wildlife, local businesses and the value and enjoyment of our properties.
Residents, homeowners, businesses and developers are entitled to expect that these decisions are made fairly, openly and with proper consideration of all the evidence.
But what happens when councillors attend private meetings about planning applications? What if important matters are discussed behind closed doors but are not fully examined at the public meeting? How can residents be confident that councillors have not already formed their views before hearing their arguments?
These questions are at the heart of a scrutiny investigation that Full Council has now agreed to undertake.
What did the Council agree in November 2024?
On 20 November 2024, Full Council unanimously approved changes to its Constitution, removing the requirement for private technical briefings before Development Management Committee meetings.
The accompanying report explained that key points were sometimes discussed only in private rather than in the subsequent public meeting.
During the debate, councillors expressed concerns about transparency, public confidence and the risk that planning applications could appear to have been debated before the public meeting began.
Council Leader Cllr Simon Werner argued that discussions about planning applications needed to take place publicly and, Cllr Adam Bermange, who introduced the changes, also acknowledged concerns about the existing arrangements saying “I think we owe it to the public to to have those debates [in public]”
The agreed Minutes of the meeting note that, “Councillor Werner felt that the constitution set out good governance and a set of rules which needed to be followed by officers. On the technical briefings, he had been wary of them as a result of some poor comments at historic planning meetings. In the interests of public transparency, discussions around applications needed to be made public.“
And also that, “Councillor Bermange highlighted comments from some residents that it felt like applications had already been debated as a result of the private briefings.“
The proposed alternative was for councillors to submit technical questions to officers in advance, with relevant information and explanations incorporated into the public proceedings.
The clear expectation was that important planning discussions would take place in public, where applicants, objectors and residents could see how decisions were reached.
But did the constitutional amendment actually deliver what Full Council intended?
Andrew Hill’s questions expose an important discrepancy
At Full Council on 22 September 2026, Andrew Hill asked two public questions that brought these concerns back into focus.
His first question asked which planning applications had been the subject of private briefings since the November 2024 decision.
In his written response, Cllr Adam Bermange maintained that Council had removed the requirement for mandatory briefings immediately before committee meetings but had not prohibited other private technical discussions.
He explained that councillors continued to seek advice and clarification from officers, but did not provide the requested list of private meetings.
In his supplementary question, Mr Hill challenged the suggestion that the original decision was principally concerned with timing and inflexibility of these meetings. He referred instead to the multiple statements made by Councillors in November 2024 about transparency and the risk of apparent predetermination.
Cllr Bermange replied that the previous arrangements could result in councillors asking questions privately and then feeling no need to repeat them during the public meeting. He maintained that the changes had reduced that risk.
He also said that Mr Hill’s request for a list of private meetings was difficult to quantify because it was unclear whether it included individual discussions with officers or collective meetings involving committee members.
Mr Hill subsequently clarified that he meant collective briefings to which all committee members were invited.
That distinction is crucial. An individual councillor asking an officer to clarify a technical point is not necessarily equivalent to members of a decision-making committee attending a collective private briefing about an application.
The public is entitled to know which collective briefings have taken place, what applications were discussed and what safeguards were in place.
Did the constitutional wording undermine the Council’s intention?
During the September Council meeting, the Monitoring Officer explained that the November 2024 amendment removed the mandatory requirement for technical briefings but did not expressly prohibit other technical briefings.
This interpretation of the amended Constitution raises a significant governance question.
If the purpose of the November 2024 decision was to prevent important planning discussions from taking place privately, why was the amendment framed in a way that allowed collective private briefings to continue?
Were councillors made aware that such briefings could continue under different arrangements? Was this possibility expressly considered when they voted? And what guidance was subsequently issued to officers and committee members?
The distinction between removing a mandatory requirement and prohibiting a practice may appear technical, but its consequences could be substantial.
It could mean that the Council removed a constitutional requirement while leaving open the possibility of continuing the very practice that had prompted concerns about transparency, just under a different label.
We do not know whether that was intended, or the extent to which it occured. The scrutiny investigation should establish what Full Council understood it was approving, what arrangements were subsequently introduced and whether those arrangements were consistent with the purpose of the unanimous decision.
A second concern: legal advice and a September planning decision
Mr Hill’s second question concerned a private briefing held on 8 September 2026 for members of the Maidenhead Development Management Committee (MDMC).
The briefing involved officers and external legal counsel and related to planning application 26/00885/VAR, concerning a proposed change to the approved highway arrangements associated with the Maidenhead Golf Club development.
Cllr Jack Douglas requested that the private briefing be recorded. His request was refused.
The committee considered the application the following day.
At the public Maidenhead Development Management Committee meeting on 9 September 2026, Mr Hill challenged officers’ repeated references to a “Stage 2 Road Safety Audit”. Officers acknowledged that the audit available was, in fact, a Stage 1 audit.
This raises an important question: if such a discrepancy could emerge during public questioning, what information had been presented at the private briefing the previous day, and had councillors been given an accurate understanding of the evidence?
Mr Hill also questioned why the committee proceeded without deferring consideration of the application. Whether a Stage 2 audit was required at that point, and whether the distinction was material to the decision, are matters that warrant clarification.
Mr Hill therefore questioned the legal advice associated with the briefing and the subsequent committee meeting, particularly the relationship between private preparatory discussions, the Human Rights Act and the right to a fair hearing.
In his written response, Cllr Bermange disputed the suggestion that members had been advised that the Human Rights Act generally did not apply. He said the advice concerned particular provisions of the Council’s Constitution and their application to formal meetings rather than informal private briefings.
In response to Mr Hill’s concerns, Cllr Bermange defended the legal advice provided to councillors and declined his request for an independent review.
However, the central question remains unanswered: what was discussed during the private briefing, and was all relevant substantive information subsequently considered in public?
Mr Hill argued that Human Rights are not a switch which somehow turns on when decisions are made in public, but is turned off if discussions happen in private. Cllr Bermange said he was satisfied with the legal advice given to Councillors and did not agree to the independent review Mr Hill requested in his supplementary question to council.
This leaves important questions unanswered.
What precisely was discussed at the private briefing? What legal advice was given? Was relevant information adequately addressed during the public meeting? Why was the request to record the private meeting in the interests of transparency refused, and what alternative records were in fact retained (if any)?
The fact that a final vote takes place at a public planning meeting does not, by itself, answer every question about the fairness and transparency of the briefing process leading up to it.
Why does this matter to residents?
Imagine spending weeks examining a planning application that could affect your home, preparing objections and arranging to speak at a committee meeting. Generally only one member of the public may speak in objection, and for only three minutes.
You might, for example, raise concerns about traffic outside a school, the loss of trees, inadequate drainage, overlooking, noise or pressure on local services.
Now imagine discovering that councillors had already attended a private collective briefing about the application in which officers had open-ended rights to discuss these matters at length, but you could not establish what was discussed or whether all the important arguments were subsequently presented in public.
Would you be confident that your representations had received fair consideration? Mr Hill identified from the public meeting that Safety Audits had been misunderstood by Officers, so it begs the question what else may have been misunderstood by officers or Councillors in the undocumented private meetings?
The same principle applies to applicants. A developer, business or homeowner seeking planning permission should not have to wonder whether adverse views were formed privately without a proper opportunity to respond. Applicants also only have three minutes to speak, and could face having to undertake time-consuming and expensive appeal processes to correct errors.
Poorly informed or unfair planning decisions can have substantial consequences. They can affect people’s finances, safety, health and quality of life. They can cause environmental damage, delay necessary development and expose the Council to complaints, disputes and legal costs.
There is currently no finding that any particular planning decision was biased, predetermined or unlawful. That is precisely why an evidence-based investigation is necessary.
Full Council votes overwhelmingly for scrutiny
Following Mr Hill’s questions and Cllr Bermange’s responses, I sought to refer the matter to the Council’s Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel under Council Procedure Rule C9.12.
My initial intervention led to a lengthy procedural exchange about the appropriate constitutional route. Cllr Suzanne Cross supported the proposed referral.
I subsequently clarified that I was moving a formal referral motion, not asking Council to determine in advance that a constitutional breach had occurred.
This distinction matters. The purpose of scrutiny is to investigate a concern, not to require councillors or residents to prove wrongdoing before an investigation can begin.
Full Council voted 28 in favour, with two abstentions, to refer the practice of private briefings before Development Management Committee meetings to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
This was an overwhelming decision by Council to subject the matter to formal examination.
What will the scrutiny investigation examine?
Following the Council’s decision, Cllr Suzanne Cross and I, with the assistance of Cllr Jack Douglas, have prepared a proposed scoping document for the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
Mr Hill, whose questions initiated the process, is intended to give evidence.
The proposed investigation addresses five principal areas.
1. What actually happened?
Which collective private briefings have taken place since 20 November 2024? Which planning applications were discussed, who attended, what information was presented and what records exist?
2. Was Full Council’s November 2024 decision properly implemented?
What were councillors told when they approved the constitutional amendment? Were the proposed alternative arrangements introduced? Was subsequent practice consistent with the intentions underpinning that full council decision?
3. Were planning decisions genuinely considered in public?
Were substantive matters discussed privately adequately presented and considered during public committee meetings?
Were appropriate safeguards maintained against apparent bias or predetermination, and did applicants, objectors and other interested parties have a fair opportunity to understand and respond to relevant information?
4. Were there adequate records, legal safeguards and transparency?
What arrangements existed for documenting briefings? Why was the request to record the 8 September meeting refused?
What legal framework and professional guidance apply, and did the Council’s practices meet appropriate standards of openness, objectivity and accountability?
5. What should happen in future?
Should collective private briefings continue at all? If they do, what safeguards should apply?
Options include clearer rules, published written questions and answers, appropriate records, disclosure of relevant materials and stronger arrangements to ensure that substantive consideration takes place in public.
The proposed review also considers how these safeguards should operate alongside changes to the Council’s planning referral arrangements.
The scoping document requests the relevant evidence and proposes hearing from officers, committee chairs, the Cabinet Member and Mr Hill. The Panel will determine the final scope and conduct of its investigation.
A wider test of the Council’s accountability
This investigation raises a fundamental question about local democracy.
When Full Council makes a decision, residents should be able to expect that it will be implemented in accordance with its purpose. When residents ask legitimate questions, they should receive meaningful answers. When those answers leave important matters unresolved, there should be an effective means of independent scrutiny.
Councillors must be able to obtain necessary technical information and confidential legal advice. But the Council must also demonstrate that its arrangements do not undermine fair, open and accountable decision-making.
These principles are particularly important in planning, where decisions can have lasting consequences for communities, businesses, homeowners and the natural environment.
I welcome Full Council’s overwhelming support for the referral and believe the investigation should be thorough, evidence-led and open-minded.
Its purpose must be to establish what happened, identify any shortcomings and recommend improvements where they are needed.
Residents should never have to wonder whether the real planning debate happened behind closed doors before they entered the public meeting.
That is why Mr Hill’s questions matter. It is why I sought the Council’s formal referral. And it is why I will continue to press for effective scrutiny and transparent reporting of its findings.tings to carry on under a different label. Let’s not plant the idea that this is vaguely credible.
Note: The main image is AI generated and meant to be figurative of the issues set out in this article.
