Agenda item

Decision:

RECOMMENDED:  1)       That applications due to go to Planning Committee (except those subject to the Member call-in right) be considered first by a Sifting Panel. The Sifting Panel may resolve that an application that would need to go to Planning Committee under 1.1.2 – 1.1.4 of the current Scheme of Delegation (attached to the report) can be determined under officer delegated powers.

 

2)       That the current Member call-in right and the current timescale for it be retained but amended to ensure that Members only call-in applications within their own Wards (unless exceptional reasons dictate otherwise), and that reasons for calling-in the application are given.

 

3)       That the operation of the Sifting Panel and the detail of “exceptional Circumstances” set out in the report be reviewed after 12 months of its commencement and the relevant Scrutiny Panel be invited to carry out the review.

 

Reason for Decision

 

To allow a more proportionate use of the Planning Committee, both in terms of Members and officers time and resources. 

 

Minutes:

Councillor Blunt presented a report which explained that the Planning Scheme of Delegation determined which applications would go to Planning Committee, and which could be dealt with under powers delegated to the Executive Director - Environment & Planning. The Planning Committee should deal with the more contentious and often finely balanced applications, and those that required a particular level of public scrutiny.

 

The Scheme was last amended in March 2015, where it was updated in line with legislative changes and particular issues. However the impact of the high number of applications that were going to the Planning Committee, was an issue that needed to be resolved, and it was evident that this Council take more applications to Committee than any of our neighbouring Councils. As a result the officer and indeed Councillor time and resources that were currently going into the preparation and operation of the Committee was considered to be disproportionately high.

 

The preferred way forward was to amend the Scheme of Delegation through the creation of a Sifting Panel, reviewing those applications that would normally go to Planning Committee, to determine whether or not they should go. The Sifting Panel would be made up of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, the Portfolio Holder for Development, a Member of the Planning Committee and the Executive Director and Assistant Director (Environment & Planning). The Sifting Panel had been the subject of a 3 month trial period, as well as a further trial in front of Planning Committee members, and was considered to be an acceptable way forward.

 

Councillor rights to call-in a planning application within 28 days of its publication on the weekly list would however remain.  The scheme would be reviewed after 12 months of operation.

 

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor J Moriarty addressed the Cabinet expressing concern about the Sifting Panel and its trial run.  He considered that there should have been notes of the trial meetings held to date and more evidence presented on the potential figures involved.  He considered that the removal of the requirement for Parish Council disagreements with officers recommendations going straight to Committee were in contravention of the Localism Act and the Statement of Community Involvement and the report should have been submitted to a Scrutiny Panel.  He considered that the sifting panel would already know the officers view on applications when it looked at them and that parishes should have been consulted on the proposed changes.  He felt that more detail was required on the mechanics of the scheme. 

 

It was confirmed that the proposals did not contravene the Localism Act or the Statement of Community Involvement, as the consultation arrangement on applications for  parishes was not changing. It was also confirmed that at the stage the Panel would meet the view of officers would not be known, and that if there was any question mark as to whether an application should go to Committee the Panel would send it.  With regard to the issue of minutes of the sifting processes was explained that a list would be prepared of the outcome of the meeting, but it was not intended to make the whole process more bureaucratic.  The Planning Committee had seen the process in operation and had supported the recommendations.

 

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor Parish addressed Cabinet and stated that he took exception to any view that parishes caused trouble when at odds with officer’s opinions.  He confirmed that he had supported the new process when it was viewed by the Planning Committee.  He expressed concern that with the requirement for call ins only in the Members ward, members may chose not to call it in.  He suggested that if a matter was called in to Committee, either the ward member or a representative from the Parish should attend to speak.

 

In response it was stressed that the point he raised about parishes causing trouble certainly was not the case.  With regard to the issue of speaking on an item at Committee, it was confirmed that the Parish would be able to speak as part of the process already.  It was considered that attendance by members, or when they weren’t able to attend, an email explanation was respectful of the Committee.

 

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor Mrs V Spikings addressed the Cabinet and expressed the view that Members who had called items in should be told that if they don’t attend Committee or send an explanatory email, the item would be dealt with under delegated powers.  In expressing her support for the recommendation, Councillor Mrs Spikings drew attention to the fact that the Planning Department were under pressure to deliver within the deadlines, and the preparation of reports was extremely time consuming.  Members would be able to attend the sifting process should they wish to do so and items called in by Members would not come before the Panel.

 

Councillor Beales commented that where a Councillor was active in their ward they would generally call an item in if requested.  He confirmed if he was not able to attend a called in matter at Committee he had always sent an explanatory email to the Chairman for the Committee’s information.  With regard to the issue of the information on numbers of applications etc he suggested that these be available to for the 12 months review, along with some further refinement on the “exceptional circumstances” which would allow call in across wards.

 

The Cabinet agreed that the proposal should improve the processes by looking at the mechanisms with a review after 12 months, without entering into a bureaucratic process.

 

RECOMMENDED:  1)       That applications due to go to Planning Committee (except those subject to the Member call-in right) be considered first by a Sifting Panel. The Sifting Panel may resolve that an application that would need to go to Planning Committee under 1.1.2 – 1.1.4 of the current Scheme of Delegation (attached to the report) can be determined under officer delegated powers.

 

2)       That the current Member call-in right and the current timescale for it be retained but amended to ensure that Members only call-in applications within their own Wards (unless exceptional reasons dictate otherwise), and that reasons for calling-in the application are given.

 

3)       That the operation of the Sifting Panel and the detail of “exceptional circumstances” set out in the report be reviewed after 12 months of its commencement and the relevant Scrutiny Panel be invited to carry out the review.

 

Reason for Decision

 

To allow a more proportionate use of the Planning Committee, both in terms of Members and officers time and resources. 

 

Supporting documents: