Agenda item

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 J Geary responded that he was not suggesting that the way the system was run was unfair.  He also suggested that the call-in period be extended to 10 days.

Councillor N Smith asked why the issue with advantages for agents had only just been raised when it was adequate 12 months ago, when the scheme was last reviewed.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration explained that the issue had been building over previous months as complaints had been received, he felt that tightening the procedure would ease the issue and make it fair.  Councillor N Smith commented that local people felt that they did not have a fair chance to air their views if applications were not considered at Planning Committee.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration reminded Members that neighbours were notified and any representations received were considered by officers.

Councillor V Richichi stated that he would not tolerate discrimination against people who chose to work within the law.  He felt that the agent in question was not given an advantage and should not be discriminated against just because he was hard working.  He also felt that the Planning Committee were being told that they were not good enough to make certain decisions and that was distasteful.  The Head of Planning and Regeneration clarified that the proposal was not discriminating but attempted to avoid giving anyone an advantage, even if accidentally.  He added that if Members were not in agreement with the proposed triggers then he would happily look into it further. 

Councillor D Harrison commented that he would prefer it if the Head of Planning and Regeneration had another look at the proposals and suggested that a briefing be held with the Planning Committee Members for further discussions.

Councillor N Clarke commented that he had sympathy for the situation with the agent in question as the circumstances meant we were accidently unfair but even if he was given an unintentional advantage, it did not look good for the authority.  He suggested that the wording be changed so that his applications only be considered by Planning Committee if they were recommended for approval.  He also felt that the proposal for the trigger of 10 objections was too high, especially for rural areas.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that he was happy to look into everything that had been put forward by Members.

As the general feeling from the discussion was that Members did not support the recommendations, the Chairman asked the Head of Planning and Regeneration to reconsider the proposals and discuss them with Members of the Planning Committee before bringing the report back to the Policy Development Group in September.  Members agreed. 

By affirmation of the meeting it was

RESOLVED THAT:

a)     The Head of Planning and Regeneration reconsider the proposals taking into account comments made by Members.

b)     The Head of Planning and Regeneration to meet with the Members of Planning Committee to discuss the proposals before bringing a report back to Policy Development Group in September.