On June 23, 2025 Councillor Michael Pratt was serving as acting Mayor when item G2 came up on the agenda. Mayor Woodward declared a conflict and left the room. A company which he is related with, Fort Langley Properties Ltd., was the developer behind the application before council. The bylaw under discussion, No. 6134, was to rezone a cluster of properties at the corner of Glover, Mary, and Church in Fort Langley.

The proposal increases residential density by more than 50%, replacing commercial space on the upper floors with apartments. Council approved first, second, and third readings in one sitting. There were no changes to the building’s form, no redesign, no new heritage permit, and no public hearing.

The debate that followed was tense. Councillors Kunst, Martens, and Richter raised their concerns. Kunst asked why a previously designated lane behind 9110 Glover Road had been removed. Staff replied that a right-of-way would be secured, but no lane would be built. Richter called the loss of the lane a substantial change, noting it would have helped keep traffic off Glover Road. Kunst also questioned parking standards, which staff said were met despite unit changes.

Density is increasing sharply, and the residential floor space would more than double. Martens asked why there was no public hearing, to which staff said the project was legally exempt. Kunst asked if the heritage permit still applied. Staff responded that it did. Richter raised concerns about the amenity contribution policy, which had been struck down in court. Staff confirmed the contribution was now voluntary and accompanied by a waiver of liability.

These answers were careful; using words like legal and procedural. But they did not address the concerns expressed by the three councillors. At one point, Martens even asked if the application could be referred back to staff to allow for a public input opportunity. There was no motion to do so, as Pratt did not call for one. He called the vote instead, and voted in favour. The motion was carried, four to three.

Without Pratt’s support, it would have failed. That should have been a moment for pause, not proceeding at full speed. A proposal involving a company related to the mayor, revising the density of a highly sensitive site, proceeding with no public input and limited clarity. Any one of those details might have warranted a second look. Together, they definitely should have triggered it. However, Pratt called the vote and voted in the affirmative, passing it. As acting Mayor, he presided over the discussion, listened to the concerns, and moved the application forward regardless.

Councillor Pratt ran as an independent. He presented himself as thoughtful, methodical, and apart from the political noise. He often asks good questions and notices gaps in the policy language. He catches procedural drift and overall takes the job seriously. But when it comes time to vote, he usually sides with the majority. Even when the facts presented point to a different vote. He did so on the firetruck contracts. Council approved over eleven million dollars in sole-sourced purchases without public tender and without the documentation that council policy requires. One councillor voted no, it was not Pratt. He also voted in favour of the soccer megaplex. The Township’s most expensive recreation project ever, backed by one of the mayor’s political allies as it sailed through with minimal oversight. No community consultation, no detailed cost estimates, no alternative options presented, and Pratt raised no objections.

He voted in favour of the deep debt of over half a billion dollars in new borrowing that has been approved over a period of less than two years. The Township per capita liability is currently at levels that were once unthinkable. Pratt expressed his concern, asked about drawdowns, questioned repayment schedules. Clearly his concerns were legitimate and well thought out, but he voted it through anyway. He also sided with the mayor’s slate when Richter raised questions about staff turnover, oversight was being blurred, the structure of new director-level roles, and positions were being created. Council was being left out of the loop, and Pratt helped vote down the motion to investigate.

And now he’s done it again on the Glover Mary Church application. Woodward recused himself, making it so the vote could have gone either way. The mayor’s application received very limited public input, key details had shifted, and the amenity contribution policy was legally defunct. Councillors raised procedural and legal concerns. Pratt held the deciding vote and could have allowed for greater scrutiny over the project given the multiple significant concerns raised. This is not about style, Langley does not need more grandstanding. It needs councillors who are willing to vote differently when the evidence demands it. Councillor Pratt is not officially part of the mayor’s Contract With Langley slate. He was supposed to bring a thoughtful voice to council and ask the questions that others overlook. But on frequent occasions Pratt has given his support and helped Woodward’s slate make sweeping changes without challenge.

That doesn’t necessarily make him a bad councillor. By preferring to vote with the majority, it just means that Pratt may be of a more conservative mindset than signalled during his campaign. Majority votes are not always the same as accountability or in the interest of the Township residents. The next time a controversial proposal comes forward, the deciding vote may not be the mayor’s. It may be the one from the councillor who understands the issues, sees the risks, and still has time to choose a different path – but for whatever reason, chooses not to.