Agenda item

Motion referred from Council on 27 January 2016

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Planning introduced the report which set out the motion proposed by Councillor Mike Baldock and seconded by Councillor Mark Ellen and submitted to the Council on 27 January 2016.  The motion was to amend Note I of Part 3.2.1 of the Constitution – Head of Planning ‘call-in’ powers.

 

The Cabinet Member for Planning drew attention to the recommendation in the report that the call-in should not be amended.  He explained that the call-in powers applied to both recommendations for approval and also refusal. 

 

The Cabinet Member considered that the announcement of the call-in should come from the Head of Planning and not the Chairman of Planning Committee.  He also considered that a Procedure Note should be prepared that the Chairman could announce at the meeting so that the public were aware of the decision to ‘call-in’.

 

In response to a query, the Director of Corporate Services confirmed that following the General Purposes Committee’s recommendation on the proposed amendment, Members would be able to vote on whether to agree the recommendation at the Full Council meeting on 16 March 2016.

 

The proposer of the motion, also a Member of the Planning Committee, stated that he had made the proposal following concerns from members of the public about the call-in of applications.  He considered that the call-in was unnecessary and further advice could be given to Members by simply adjourning the meeting for a short period.  The Member stated that the Committee already had the power to defer the meeting for further information if required.  He considered the proposed amendment would ensure the meeting was more transparent and democratic.

 

In response to a comment, the Solicitor clarified that members of the public were allowed to register to speak on items that were deferred or called-in.  It was only if a meeting was deferred to a meeting of the Planning Working Group that they could not speak when the matter was reconsidered by the Planning Committee.

 

Members considered the proposed amendment and made the following comments: had no problem with the existing wording which was entirely democratic and the Head of Service in no way can alter the meeting; the public attending the meeting need to be better informed when a decision was called-in; at a recent meeting of the Planning Committee an application which was recommended for refusal was approved by the Committee and felt the Head of Planning should have called-in the application as it was against policy and could set a precedent; the Planning Committee were often influenced by the public gallery; Chairman should adjourn meetings more often to ensure an even-handed approach; call-in important so that Members were making the decision on planning grounds and not just appeasing the public that were present;  planning reports need to make it clear if applications are going against policy and may set a precedent; and need to consider the financial implications of potential appeal costs.

 

In response to a query, the Head of Planning stated that he was clear that he could ‘call-in’ applications when the officer recommendation was refusal but the Planning Committee were minded to approve.

 

Councillor Mike Baldock requested that it be recorded that he voted against the recommendation.

 

Recommendation: 

(1) That the constitution not be amended following the motion submitted by Members.

 

Supporting documents: