The Monitoring Officer introduced the report setting out each recommendation one by one to be considered at the next Full Council. He explained that the first recommendation was for officers to be notified in sufficient time for any amendments to their reports going to service committees. The constitutional working group had discussed this recommendation and said it would give officers time to properly consider the amendment before it went to the service committee.

Councillor Mike Henderson proposed an amendment to remove ‘and seconder’ from the second line of 3.1.17 in the constitution (as at paragraph 3.4 of the report) as some Members who sat on the Committee were a smaller political party and could struggle to find a seconder for their amendments. This was seconded by Councillor James Hunt.

Members discussed the amendment and made comments which included:

·         Did not feel it was necessary as any member of the committee could ask another Member to second a future amendment regardless of the political party they represented; and

·         expected amendments to be rare and thought if members wanted to make amendments they could always ask other committee Members to second.

On being put to the vote the amendment was carried.

The Chair proposed the remainder of recommendation one as set-out in the report and this was seconded by Councillor Alan Horton. On being put to the vote recommendation one was carried.

The Monitoring Officer introduced the second recommendation which sought a change to Head of Planning delegations. The recommendation proposed that the Head of Planning wrote to town or parish councils to advise them where they had made a representation that was not based on appropriate planning considerations.

The Chair advised that the following amendments, as set out bold, had been put forward to Members in advance of the meeting.

“(1) The delegated powers in [2.18.15.1] above shall not be exercised in the following circumstances: […] Applications where the decision of the Head of Planning would conflict with any written representation received within the specified representation period from:

(i)            Any Member of the Borough Council;

(ii)          A statutory consultee;

(iii)         A Parish or Town Council;

Provided that any such representations from any of the above are, in the opinion of the Head of Planning, based upon relevant planning considerations.

(2) Where the head of planning determines that a representation from (i) above is not based on relevant planning considerations, the Member will be advised.

(3) Where the head of planning determines that a representation from (iii) above is not based on relevant planning considerations, they will write to the town or parish council to advise them of this. The ward Member(s) for the ward of which the parish falls within will also be notified.”

Members were invited to make comments on the amendments:

-       From experience, some Parish Councils had brought applications to Planning Committee which were ‘a waste of time’ as they did not bring the application forward with material planning considerations;

-       Parish Councils needed to have training to understand material planning considerations;

-       Ward Members needed to follow the same rule as Parish Councils as Parish Councils could place more pressure on the Ward Member if they did not need to give material planning considerations to call applications in;

-       when Parish Councils received a letter from Planning Services, the Ward Member should be notified also;

-       it was the Ward Member’s responsibility to ensure officers proposed the correct conditions on applications and they should be in regular contact with planning officers;

-       felt that asking Members to give material planning considerations when calling items in could result in friction between Members and planning officers on difference of opinions; and

-       if a Member was to give material planning considerations it could suggest that they were pre-determined.

The Committee voted on the amendment in three parts. Councillor James Hunt proposed the first amendment which was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor. On being put to the vote the amendment was lost.

Councillor James Hunt proposed the second amendment and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor. On being put to the vote the amendment was lost.

Councillor James Hunt proposed the third recommendation in the amendment, and this was seconded by Councillor Mike Dendor. Councillor Tim Valentine proposed that the word ‘ward’ and ‘within’ on the last sentence be removed, and the word ‘of’ be changed to ‘in’. Councillor Mike Henderson proposed that the word ‘urgently’ be added at the end of the last sentence. Councillor James Hunt agreed with the changes and seconded the proposals. The final amendment to read as follows:

“Where the Head of Planning determined that a representation from (iii) above was not based on relevant planning considerations, they would write to the town or parish council to advise them of this. The Member(s) for the ward in which the parish falls will also be notified urgently”. On being put to the vote the amendment was carried.

Recommended:

(1)          That the constitutional changes set out in paragraphs 3.4, 3.6 of the report be agreed subject to the amendment to remove ‘seconder’ at the end of the second line at 3.1.17 of the constitution.

(2)          The words ‘and seconder’ from the second line of 3.1.7 be removed.

(3)               That the constitutional changes set out in paragraphs 3.9 and 3,10 in the report be agreed.

(4)               That the constitutional change set out in paragraph 3.11 be agreed subject to the change of wording as minuted.