Councillors who signed Rhodes statue letter may be excluded from deciding its future

On June 8, the Rhodes Must Fall campaign held a protest outside the Oxford University college, after its cause was reignited by the Black Lives Matter movement.

The campaign aims to bring a statue of 19th century British imperialist Cecil Rhodes down from the side of Oriel College on Oxford’s High Street, because of his legacy of cruelty in Africa.

Ahead of the protest, 27 Labour councillors on Oxford City Council signed a letter demanding the statue was removed from the building.

The signatories included several council cabinet members, the most senior councillors.

READ AGAIN about theirs demands to 'make Oxford a truly anti-racist city here'

At a meeting on Monday night, the council’s Lib Dem opposition leader Andrew Gant asked Labour council leader Susan Brown if their decision to sign this letter was unwise.

Mr Gant had written a question to the leader, in which he said her colleagues had signed the letter ‘despite knowing that any move to do so would be the subject of a planning application to this council’.

If councillors give an opinion on a planning application, or pre-judge it, then they can risk their ability to take part in a decision on it.

Ms Brown, who did not sign the letter in June, instead invited Oriel College to submit a planning application to remove the statue from its High Street building, which would be necessary because it is Grade-II listed.

The Rhodes statue on Oriel College. Picture: Ed Nix

Mr Gant added he wanted to be ‘absolutely clear’ his issue was not with the Rhodes Must Fall campaign.

Instead it was with ‘large numbers’ of councillors who had removed themselves from their ability to scrutinise any future planning application on the Rhodes statue and ‘placed considerable extra responsibility and pressure on their council colleagues’.

Responding to Mr Gant, Ms Brown said it was up to each individual councillor to decide their course of actions.

Her written reply said: “It is clear that Labour colleagues feel strongly about racism and some felt that publicly supporting the Rhodes Must Fall campaign was an important demonstration of solidarity with those working for change.”

Her reply added: “In respect of planning committee activity, as always it is for individual councillors of any party to judge their eligibility for any particular case that comes forward in the future.”

Rhodes Must Fall protesters on Oxford's High Street last month. Picture: Ed Nix

Oriel College could still be a long way off from submitting a planning application to remove the Rhodes Statue.

On Tuesday, it announced a timetable for an inquiry into the future of the statue, which is due to last until January 2021.

The names of eight commissioners for this inquiry were also announced on Tuesday, and they include Shaista Aziz, a Labour city councillor; Peter Ainsworth; former Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, and the director of the Pitt Rivers Museum, Laura Van Broekhoven.

ALSO READ: Verdict on Cecil Rhodes statue future expected by January

If a planning application is submitted to Oxford City Council for the statue’s removal after the inquiry, it would be discussed by the West Area Planning Committee.

Five members of the current committee may have prevented themselves from considering the application by signing the letter: Tiago Corais, Alex Hollingsworth, Richard Howlett, Dan Iley-Williamson, and Richard Tarver.

If they are considered to have pre-judged the application, they could be substituted by other councillors, but because 22 of their colleagues have also signed the letter, this pool of substitutes would be reduced to 21 other councillors who did not sign it.

Clause 24.7 of Oxford City Council’s constitution deals with ‘when councillors go public’ on planning applications.

It reads: “If a councillor has publicly supported a particular outcome, it will be very difficult for them to appear to make up their mind at committee and they should not participate in the debate or vote.

“If a councillor believes they have pre-determined an application, they should make this clear at the beginning of the meeting and leave the committee table for that item.”

However, the Local Government Association's planning guidance said: “A councillor should not be regarded as having a closed mind simply because they previously did or said something that, directly or indirectly, indicates what view they might take in relation to any particular matter.”

Depending on if and when Oriel College submits a planning application to remove the statue, it is possible a new group of councillors elected in next May’s planned elections will consider the scheme.

Planning is a quasi-judicial decision making process, and councillors acting as members of a planning committee have to make choices based on evidence they are given during meetings, not on party political issues.