Agenda item

Report of the Monitoring Officer

The Monitoring Officer provided a report that summarised the amendments to the Council’s Constitution to reflect legislative and procedural changes and introduction of administrative textual amendments. These were tabled in Appendix 1 of the report.

The Monitoring Officer highlighted some changes relating to Planning Committee as follows:

Part 3 – Responsibility for Function and Scheme of Delegation

·       Amendments to the circumstances in which applications must be considered by Planning Committee and provisions around the process for requesting that an application be determined by the Committee.

Part 4 – Standing Orders, Rules and Financial Regulations

·       Revisions to the timings of Planning Committee meetings

·       Revisions to the rules relating to public speaking at Planning Committee meetings

·       Revision to the rules relating to consultation on planning applications

Prior to the Scrutiny Group meeting Councillor Thomas asked the Monitoring Officer if amendments could be made resulting from discussions at a recent Local Development Framework meeting in respect of amendments to the circumstances in which Certificates of Compliance must be considered by Planning Committee under Part 3 of the Constitution.

With regards to Part 3 – Where a valid request that a planning application be referred to the Planning Committee for determination has been made by a ward Councillor(s), the Group asked for a more flexible approach in respect of the statutory consultee timescale of 21 days. The Director – Development and Economic Growth explained that the timescales are narrow in order that the Council meets its planning targets and to allow for a month’s lead in for officers to prepare reports for Planning Committee. It was agreed that some flexibility under exceptional circumstances only, could be allowed, for example, material reasons. 

The Group requested that the wording be ‘softened’ in respect of a ward Councillor referring an application to the Planning Committee and that they must attend the Committee in person to present their views. The Group felt that ‘must’ implies they have to attend when an alternative representation, for example a written statement would be more appropriate, adding that Councillors may not be able to attend in person due to personal or work commitments. The Director – Development and Economic Growth explained that a ward Councillor being present at committee provides best balance in an argument and is the preferred approach for Committee members. The Group were unable to reach a consensus on this issue.

With regards to Part 4 - The Group agreed with the new start time of 6.00pm for Planning Committee, however they questioned the proposal that ‘no new items shall be started after 9.00pm’ and suggested that this should be the decision of the Planning Committee Chair on the advice of the planning officer.

With regards to applications for consideration at the planning committee it was proposed that the committee may ask questions, seeking clarity from the objector or representative and the applicant. Councillor Gowland felt this required a more controlled environment and if an objector and applicant could be questioned by the committee then why not the Ward Councillor. There were mixed views on this. No consensus could be reached on this issue.

The Monitoring Officer agreed to take those amendments on which consensus had not been reached away to consider these further.

It was RESOLVED that:

a)    Governance Scrutiny Group considered the revised proposals to the Constitution and concluded that further work should be undertaken on those items on which consensus had not been reached by the Group.

b)    All other proposed revisions are recommended for adoption by Council