Agenda item

Report of the Head of Legal and Support Services

The Deputy Monitoring Officer presented the report to Members.  He focused initially on the changes to the Planning Code of Conduct and invited Members to comment.

Councillor A C Saffell asked, referring to the calling in of applications, if ‘local concerns’ included Parish Council’s concerns.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that to call in an application it would need to be supported by planning grounds and be a matter of local concern; this did include Parish Council concerns.  Councillor A C Saffell asked if a Member had a strong planning ground to call in an application was it essential for it to be a matter of local concern also.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that the change was to prevent Members calling in applications without a valid planning ground, so he would reconsider the wording to make it clearer.  All Members agreed.

Councillor A C Saffell also raised concerns that as the District was now separated into single Member Wards, the power to call in applications had been restricted, especially as the constitution stated that ‘a call in shall not be exercised by any member with a disclosable pecuniary interest’ and also that it was only Ward Members who could call in an application.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer reassured Members that public objection would still lead to an application being brought to Committee and that these procedure rules had always been in the constitution, it was only small changes to wording that had been proposed. After further pursuance of this concern by Councillor A C Saffell, the Deputy Monitoring Officer suggested that the wording could be reconsidered to restrict the calling in of applications to ward members and adjoining Ward Members.  This would help on the occasions that the Ward Members were unable to call in an application. 

Councillor N Smith believed that the proposed changes were good ones and he was happy that it was only Ward Members who could call applications in as in the past they were called in for no valid reason. 

Councillor J Geary made the following comments:

-   There had been an incident in the past where a Ward Member had refused to call in an application, because of this the Member of Parliament got involved and Councillor J Geary himself called in the application.  If that had not been done, the decision made by officers would have led to a great injustice.  An occurrence such as this was Councillor J Geary’s concern with single Member Wards and the calling in of applications by Ward Members only.

-   He was concerned that the planning process was now all about streamlining and rushing through applications, this had led to public loss of confidence.  He reported that there had been accusations that the members of Planning Committee were directed how to vote.  This had led to the public perception that decisions were made politically, which of course was not true; he believed that needed to be addressed.  He suggested that as the public had little confidence in the planning service, a survey be circulated with the Council Tax letters to ask people’s opinions so people consider Council Tax value for money.  He believed that the responses would be surprising.

-   He felt that all Ward Members should have the opportunity to speak at Planning Committee.

-   He referred to many decisions within the code of practice for Members which were ‘at the discretion of the Chairman’, which did not help to ease the public perception that the Committee was not political.

-   He believed that the proportionality of the Planning Committee should be fairer with equal numbers of Members from each political party.

-   He was concerned that Members only had five working days to call in an application, because if the Ward Member was on leave it could be missed.  This could lead to bad decisions being made.

Regarding the membership of the Planning Committee, the Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that it was subject to proportionality rules and it had to reflect the political balance of the authority.

Councillor T Eynon commented that it was important for the Council to be seen as approachable and that the change of a Ward Member only to call in applications did seem restrictive.  She stressed that the wording needed to be reconsidered.

Councillor V Richichi expressed strong concerns regarding the proposed changes as he felt that democratic decision making was being taken away from Members.  He believed that adjoining Ward Members should also be able to call in applications.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer reported that he would take Members comments forward.  He then moved on to present the remaining proposed constitutional changes to Members.  He put forward an additional change to the delegations to the Interim Director of Resources in appendix 4 as follows:

In the interest of consistency, paragraph 5.2.15 to read ‘Finance, financial and procurement (without prejudice to the statutory role and function of the Section 151 Officer)’ as it did in paragraph 5.2.13 in reference to the Monitoring Officer role.

RESOLVED THAT:

a)    The report be noted.

b)    The Policy Development Group’s comments be considered by Council when they meet to discuss the Update of the Council’s Constitution.