Issue - meetings

Report of the Director of Services

The Head of Planning and Regeneration presented the report to Members, highlighting the proposed changes to the Planning Committee scheme of delegations to improve the openness of decision making.

Councillor J Geary commented that in the past every application was considered by the Planning Committee and therefore was more open and transparent.  He acknowledged that delegating decisions to officers was designed to speed up the process but as the authority was currently exceeding national targets, he was unsure as to whether it was necessary.  He was fully aware of which planning agent the proposals were aimed at and the fact that he was married to a previous District Councillor, however he still had connections to the authority through his brother in law.  In Councillor J Geary’s opinion, the agent’s applications should still be considered by the Planning Committee due to this connection.  Councillor J Geary also raised concerns regarding the proposed change in quorum for the Planning Committee as he believed it should be at least a third of the committee, which was in line with other committees.  He was against the call-in of applications being restricted to the Ward Member as applications could be missed due to single Member Wards, especially as the call-in period was only five days. He felt this was not long enough.  He was also unhappy with the proposal for the Chairman to have a say in deciding what applications were considered by the Planning Committee as the Chairman’s son was a Director for Bellway Homes.  He felt that it was not open or transparent.  Councillor J Geary felt that each year Councillors were being excluded more from the decision making process and he was bitterly disappointed with the report.  

The Head of Planning and Regeneration acknowledged that the authority did exceed national targets but he felt there was always room for improvements.  He stated that the aim of the report was to have the right applications considered by Planning Committee.  He stated that similar applications by other agents were often not called-in, if refused and appealed against, the decision was likely to be upheld.  However, for the agent in question, appeals against decisions made by the Planning Committee were more likely to be overturned and allowed.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration wanted to make the process fair for all. Regarding the call-in by Ward Members only, he commented that arrangements had been made in the past for neighbouring Ward Members to act on another’s behalf in the case of absence. This was something he could look into further, as well as the period of time to call-in applications.  Regarding the concern of agent’s relationships to Members, it would be the responsibility of the Member to declare the interest.  He added that every Planning Authority had delegated powers as well as decisions made by the Planning Committee.  Nationally approximately 90 percent were decided through delegated authority.  He did not want to take powers away from Members but was aiming to be overtly fair.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7