Agenda item

Report of the Head of Legal and Support Services

Presented by the Corporate Portfolio Holder

Councillor N J Rushton presented the report to members and moved the recommendations. 

The motion was seconded by Councillor M Specht.

Councillor J Legrys stated that there were a number of issues with the report.  He moved that the item be deferred and a better explanation be requested.  In respect of the calling in of planning applications by ward members, he expressed concerns that the comments made by members of Policy Development Group had not been reflected and there was no clarity about how a member could call in an application if they happened to be on holiday.  He expressed his vehement objection to the inclusion of the references in respect of clothing.  He asked whether he would be ejected from a meeting for wearing a red jacket reflecting his political beliefs, and whether this would infringe upon his human rights as he would not be told by an officer what he could or could not wear at a meeting.  He added that Councillor G Jones had proudly worn badges in the past representing his republican connections in the United States.  He expressed support him or anyone else wanting to wear a symbol of their political persuasion.  He requested that this item be deferred until member had been given the opportunity to debate this and to consider the comments made by Policy Development Group.

The Chairman advised that there was already a motion on the table and this needed to be disposed of before the motion to defer the item could be considered further.

Councillor T J Pendleton stated that he was mindful of the issues relating to single member wards, however he was aware of what was happening in his ward and whether he wanted to call in an application.  He added that he did take extended holidays, however he made it his business as a Councillor to ensure he was contactable at all times, and therefore he did not see a problem with the proposals.

Councillor M Specht referred to the comments made in respect of the dress code and political bias in planning matters, and commented that he did not consider wearing garments of a particular colour was an issue.  He felt that the problem arose when members of Planning Committee arrive to go on site visits wearing clothing bearing political slogans.  He felt that exception needed to be taken at this point.  He hoped that members of Planning Committee would not think to wear such political clothing in future.

Councillor R Johnson stated that he wore badges and was proud to do so.  He made reference to the site visits and stated that it was his view that all members should attend these.  He stated that he could not support the document in its present form and added that he would like the item to be deferred.

Councillor D Harrison commented that the wearing of badges was not a problem, however political slogans were not acceptable.  He felt that there had to be an element of professionalism, particularly in the planning process, and he felt that such behaviour did not portray the individual nor the authority in a positive manner.

Councillor V Richichi expressed concerns that the comments of Policy Development Group had not been accepted.  He sought assurance that there was a good reason to have this committee and that their views were being considered. 

Councillor N J Rushton assured members that Policy Development Group was an integral part of the council and its views had been considered prior to this report coming to Council.  He reiterated the importance of appearance in showing that you are open minded and have not predetermined and application for political or personal reasons.  In respect of site visits, he emphasised that members would be well advised to attend these, or visit the site separately themselves.  He added that members could choose to abstain from voting if they felt they were unable to make a decision, and therefore he felt that it was not necessary to force members to attend the planned site visits.  He urged members to support the proposals.

The Chairman clarified that at this point, Councillor N J Rushton had responded to a direct question and would therefore retain his right to reply at the close of the debate. 

Councillor S McKendrick felt that a balanced view needed to be taken and agreed that there should not be any political branding in any meeting where it could suggest bias in any way.  In respect of single member wards, she felt there was an issue with having only one member able to call in an application, as this was very restrictive.  She added that she would be interested to know where this best practice originated from and she questioned whether this was reasonable when a member was not available.  She felt that this was a significant part of the guidance which needed careful consideration. 

Councillor N J Rushton stated that he had heard the arguments for and against, and believed the recommendations were in the best interests of the integrity of the Council and the Planning Committee.

 Councillor J Legrys requested a recorded vote.

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote.

A recorded vote having been requested, the voting was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors R Ashman, R D Bayliss, R Blunt, J Bridges, R Boam, J Clarke, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, S Gillard, T Gillard, L Goacher, D Harrison, G Hoult, J Hoult, G Jones, K Merrie, T J Pendleton, P Purver, V Richichi, N J Rushton, A V Smith and M Specht and M B Wyatt (23).

Against the motion:

Councillors R Adams, N Clarke, D Everitt, F Fenning, R Johnson, J Legrys, S McKendrick and T Neilson (8).

Abstentions:

Councillors R Canny and A C Saffell (2).

The motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

a)    The  comments of members of Policy Development Group and the subsequent advice from officers as set out in section 4 of the report be noted;

b)    The amendments to the Constitution set out in sections 3 and 5 of this report and appendices 1 – 4 be approved;

c)         The Head of Legal and Support services be authorised to make the agreed amendments to the Constitution and re-issue the document.