The Cabinet Member for Planning introduced the report, referring in particular to paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the report and the discussion at the General Purposes Committee meeting held on 25 September 2018.  In proposing the recommendations, he suggested additional wording to the revised procedure note to allow for the Chairman, at his discretion, to refer technical or legal issues arising during the debate to relevant officers to respond as required during the discussion of the item.  This was seconded by the Chairman of the Planning Committee.

A debate ensued, during which comments were made on the following themes:

·        More clarity was needed for Ward Members when sitting as Members of the Planning Committee;

·        Opportunity should be given for adjoining parish councillors to speak at Planning Committee meetings;

·        The Procedure Notes should be considered by the Scrutiny Review Group;

·        The need for the Planning Committee to take decisions on planning considerations;

·        The need for additional training for Planning Committee Members;

·        The need to consider other aspects of the Procedure Notes and to consider procedures followed by other Councils, such as allowing Members to ask public speakers questions.

The Deputy Leader of the Independent Group proposed the following amendments:

(1)  That further legal advice is sought regarding Ward Members;

(2)  That Members should not be limited to speaking once, and opportunity should be given to ask questions of public speakers;

(3)  That the Procedure Notes be referred back to the General Purposes Committee to review the document.

This was seconded by the Leader of The Swale Group.

The mover of the original Motion responded to the points in the amendment, advising that the Procedure Notes would be reviewed in six months and that he could not support the amendment.

In respect of guidance for Ward Members, the Principal Lawyer (Corporate Governance) clarified that the issue was not whether a Ward Member sat on the Planning Committee and stated that s/he was a Ward Member.  The issue was that, in considering an application which affects his/her ward, the Member must keep an open mind.  If the Member thinks that s/he cannot do that and/or wishes to put forward particular views on behalf of the Ward, the Member should absent him/herself from sitting on the Committee and speak as a visiting Ward Member under the usual procedure.

A discussion ensued on the amendment, the following points were clarified or made:

·        There was no suggestion for members of the public to be interrogated or cross-examined, just to ask a question;

·        The procedure if there was no debate on an application;

·        The need for clear procedures that the public could follow;

·        There should be discretion for the Chairman to allow Members to speak more than once if additional information had arisen;

·        That the Procedure Notes would be reviewed in six months;

·        That the public speakers might be intimidated if questioned by Members;

·        The need to consider how the Minutes refer to Ward Members who are Members of the Planning Committee.

The amendment was put to the vote but was lost.

The debate returned to the original motion, during which discussion centred on the following themes:

·        That there would be a further review in six months;

·        The work undertaken by the Scrutiny review of Development Management, which included visits to other authorities;

·        The importance of making sure the public understood the procedures.

Another Member suggested that the procedures regarding site meetings should also be reviewed.

The Motion was then put to the vote and agreed.

Resolved:

(1) That the revised wording for Part 4.12 of the Constitution as presented at Appendix I of the report be agreed.

(2) That the wording throughout the Constitution be changed to reflect the new revised procedure notes.