Campaigners and residents who oppose controversial planning applications shouldn’t be confused, or misled, by ‘grandstanding’ in the planning committee, councillors were told.

Members of Worcester City Council’s planning department debated what the policy should be if they wanted to take a decision on an application which went against the advice from the authority’s planning officers.

At the moment, if councillors are against a plan the officer has recommended for approval, they declare they are ‘minded to refuse.’

The application is then deferred and sent back to planning officers who take into account the members' objections, and assess whether the council would win if the applicant went to a Planning Appeal, which is decided by a Whitehall-appointed planning inspector.The application would come to the next meeting for further consideration.

Councillors were asked whether they wanted to refine that system, or change to one where a decision was made at the first meeting.

Councillor Geoff Williams , who has been on the committee for 19 years and been chairman twice said: “I don’t think we should change our policy. There are some councillors who like to grandstand and oppose applications, but they don’t do so on planning grounds. So if we refuse applications on non-planning grounds to please people who are in the public gallery, I think we open ourselves up to more planning appeals, which take time and money.”

Chairman of the planning committee Councillor Chris Mitchell favoured the change to making a decision first time. He said: “I think the current system gives false expectations to the public. Planning is often an emotional issue and I think it should be done in one go."

After councillors voted by five to three to keep the current system but amend it to make it more understandable to the public, including an explanation of what ‘minded to’ refuse or accept means.

When an application returns to committee after such a deferral councillors will only be able to discuss the specific planning issues that were cited as reasons for refusal in the their first meeting.