Agenda item

RECOMMENDED:  1)       That the results of the review of the sifting panel which has been operating for 12 months and the comments of the Corporate Performance Panel be noted.

2)       That the continued operation of the sifting panel be endorsed

3)       That the comments made on the issue of ‘exceptional circumstances’ be noted.

Reason for Decision

The operation of the sifting panel has reduced the amount of applications going to Planning Committee by 19% compared to the previous year. This enables the committee to concentrate better on those applications that do go, and has also helped free up capacity within the section. It is considered that the panel has worked well over the 12 months it has been in operation.

Councillor Blunt presented a report which set out the details of the review of the Planning Sifting Panel which had been carried out after 12 months operation. In addition the detail of what is meant by ‘exceptional circumstances’ as set out in the original Cabinet report is to be reviewed. It was noted that the correspondence sent to the Chairman of the Corporate Performance Panel had been forwarded on to the Cabinet.

Under Standing Order 34, Mrs S Fraser addressed the Cabinet.  She had attended the majority of the sifting meetings as an observer and whilst had started out not supporting it was now fully in support of it and considered that the views of the parishes were heard in the process.

Councillor T Parish addressed the Cabinet expressing the view that parish councils should have been consulted as they were the customers.  He also had reservations about the amount of time permitted to call an item in to committee as he considered it too short.

The Assistant Director responded that the statutory consultation requirement was 21 days notice, but the Council gave 28 days from the publication of the weekly list, which was more generous than most others. 

Councillor Blunt also referred to the fact that parishes were asked for planning reasons for objections but were often not given.  However, if the Panel had any concerns the decision would be taken by Committee.  He confirmed that further planning training was to be offered to parishes and if their objections meant the items were submitted to Committee they were encouraged to speak at the meeting.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor Mrs V Spikings addressed the Cabinet in support of the sifting panel.  She explained that all the statutory consultees had to be taken into account  and this was checked in the sifting panel.  She acknowledged that some parishes did still need further training on the issue.  She drew attention to the fact that officers could concentrate on writing fewer report and the Committee could concentrate fully on a more manageable number of items being submitted to it.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor J Moriarty addressed the Cabinet and referred to the fact that the original item was called in to the Corporate Performance Panel, and to the Chief Executive’s comments permitting that call in to be heard, but which was rejected by the Panel when heard.  He made reference to a meeting of the sifting panel he had studied where parish views were not deemed to be planning reasons.  He suggested that the parishes should be asked if they wanted the sifting process to be continued or not.

The Executive Director explained that it would have been helpful for Councillor Moriarty to have sat in on a few of the meetings as there were a number of incidences where there were valid planning reasons given and these went to committee.  The number of applications being submitted to Committee was  too high with the capacity to hold the attention pressed to the limit on occasions.  The agendas were now more manageable.  It was noted that the Chairman of the sifting panel was happy for any Councillor could attend the sifting panel to observe if they wished.

Councillor Blunt commented that the changes were better use of officers time.  The Leader, in proposing the recommendations, commented that it would be for the Corporate Performance Panel to decide if they wished to monitor its progress further.

RECOMMENDED:  1)       That the results of the review of the sifting panel which has been operating for 12 months and the comments of the Corporate Performance Panel be noted.

2)       That the continued operation of the sifting panel be endorsed

3)       That the comments made on the issue of ‘exceptional circumstances’ be noted.

Reason for Decision

The operation of the sifting panel has reduced the amount of applications going to Planning Committee by 19% compared to the previous year. This enables the committee to concentrate better on those applications that do go, and has also helped free up capacity within the section. It is considered that the panel has worked well over the 12 months it has been in operation.