The Interim Head of Planning introduced the report as set-out in the agenda papers.

The Chair invited Members to ask questions and make comments and points raised included:

·         Who had agreed to set-up the Planning Improvement Board (PIB) and which committee had approved it and were they allowed to agree the current procedures?;

·         Parish Councils often met after the initial 21 – day consultations so would they be given any leeway if that happened?;

·         what was the public interest test?;

·         if clear guidance was set-out then it would not be necessary to write to advise Parish Councils that an application would not be considered at Planning Committee?;

·         recorded votes for each application could be time consuming;

·         hoped that Parish Councils would still be able to submit concerns even if they missed the consultation deadline;

·         important to have recorded votes as this would promote openness and transparency;

·         agreed that some household applications had been a waste of the Planning Committee’s time but felt there should be a mechanism to ensure exceptional applications were considered such as agreement of three  Members;

·         Parish Councils should be required to attend Planning Committee on any application they had called-in;

·         there was no reason to remove delegation 2.8.15.2 and did not consider that it resulted in increased administration;

·         did not support that Members who had voted contrary to officer recommendations should provide written reasons for officers as Members were not accountable to officers, but to their electorate;

·         considered that providing written reasons to officers supported the Council’s case at any subsequent appeal;

·         recorded votes were a good use of democracy;

·         Members were unclear what was deemed lobbying, it needed to be clear perhaps some guidance could be provided;

·         any reference to “in the opinion of the Head of Planning” should be removed as it was too vague;

·         the Council’s constitution needed to be clear and up-to-date with the latest legislation;

·         the Chair already had the right to remove any member of the public or Member from any meeting if they were acting inappropriately and needed to ensure any additional wording in that respect did not conflict with the existing code of conduct;

·         when letters of representation were logged on the portal could an automatic reply be set-up explaining that it would be advisable to contact their Ward member if they wanted the item to be considered by the Planning Committee?; and

·         the Court of Appeal had made it clear that Planning committees were not quasi-judicial and the constitution needed to be updated.

A Member suggested the following wording be added to the proposed new wording to delegation 2.8.15.2:  “….statutory consultation period or within any extension period agreed by officers and such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed.”  This was agreed by Members.  In response to a query from a Member, the Interim Head of Planning explained the deletion of the word ‘planning’ in respect of relevant considerations under this delegation was to ensure that no relevant representations were excluded.

The Interim Head of Planning agreed to find out the origin of PIB.  The Chair said that he understood that the PIB consisted of members of the administration beginning to formulate ideas, but these would be adequately scrutinised at the PTPWG and the Policy and Resources Committee as appropriate. 

The Interim Head of Planning said that with regard to the parish council consultation period, the proposed amendment was more about tightening the wording and less about setting the time limit.  She said that if parishes requested an extension of time then officers would do their best to accommodate their request.   The Interim Head of Planning agreed to add some wording outlining what the public interest test was and said officers were working on a draft Member Developer Protocol which would clarify what was considered as lobbying.  

The Interim Head of Planning confirmed that delegation 3.1.38.5 would be amended to ensure that following a meeting of the Planning Working Group members of the public would be allowed to speak on the matter when it came back to the Planning Committee.  She said that officers had considered including behaviour in the public gallery under delegation 3.1.38.5, but did not want to assume negative behaviour and the Chair already had the discretion to warn or eject anyone from the public gallery. 

Discussion ensued and Members requested that following Members’ comments on the Scheme of Delegations and Committee Procedure Rules, as set-out in tables 1 and 2 of the report, this be updated to include the comments of the PTPWG and referred back to the PTPWG prior to proposing any changes to the Constitution Working Group.

Recommended:

(1)      That the Scheme of Delegations and Committee Procedure Rules, as set-out in tables 1 and 2 of the report, be updated to include the comments of the PTPWG and referred back to the PTPWG prior to proposing any changes to the Constitution Working Group.