Agenda item

REPORT OF THE SERVICE DIRECTOR – LEGAL AND COMMUNITY.

 

This report covers proposed: 

 

·       Changes to section 8 Planning Control Committee’s Terms of Reference:

·       Removal of Appendices 1-2 to Section 8, with these to incorporated in a new Procedure document (Appendix A), with the aim of addressing issues that have arisen during the last year.

·       Minor change to section 14 delegations for some Service Directors – regarding attestation of the Common seal.      

N.B this item has been deferred from the Council meeting of 23 November 2023 (see 246) and subsequently the Area Forum recommendation 2.6, for noting, has been dealt with by Delegated Decision 6 December 2023 and therefore removed from this version of the earlier report.

RESOLVED: That Full Council

 

(1)   Approved the proposed amendments to the Planning Control Committee’s Terms of Reference as per 8.1 of this report, with the deletion of the word “Ward”, in lines 2 and 11 of the proposed changes to section 8.4.5(c)(iii) of the Planning Control Committee’s Terms of Reference.

 

(2)   Approved the removal of Appendices 1-2 to Section 8 of the Constitution.

 

(3)   Agreed the proposed Procedure for Speaking at the Planning Control Committee (Appendix A), with the replacement of the words “Ward Member with Member” in paragraphs 1.5, and with the deletion of paragraph 1.9.

 

(4)   Agreed to the principle, that if the Procedure at 2.2 required further amendment, that the Monitoring Officer may do so in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Control Committee, and the Group Leaders, including changes to 6.1 and 6.2 to make them conform with the procedure as amended in 8.4.5 (c)(iii).

 

(4) A)   Whilst this is not a formal resolution, the following should be taken into account by the Monitoring Officer, in finalising the Procedure, in respect of section 1.5 to 1.8 be amended as follows:

 

(i)             Section 1.5, bullet points 1 and 3:

 

“Objectors” Group – a maximum of 3 persons against approval of the application, the speaking time will be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis, and the right to address the Committee is confined to persons who have previously made written representations on the application (either as an individual or as part of a consulted group during the consultation). 

 

“Supporters” Group – a maximum of 3 persons in favour of approval of the application and the right to address the Committee is confined to persons who have previously made written representations on the application (either as an individual or as part of a consulted groups during the consultation).

 

(ii)            Section 1.6 

 

In the case of “Objectors” and “Supporters”, no more than three people may speak on an application.

 

(iii)           Section 1.7

 

In the case of “Objectors” and “Supporters” the time allocated to each speaker is 3 minutes, however, should there be only one objector or support the time allocated to each speaker is 5 minutes. This time limit is strictly adhered to.

 

(iv)           Section 1.8

 

In the case of a Major application or being of significant public interest, the Chair may agree to extend the speaking time allocated to each “group”. Any request to extend the speaking time should be made to the Chair in writing by 5pm, three clear working days prior to the meeting date. The Committee, Member & Scrutiny Team will be advised/ and then advise all registered speakers of the extension. Any agreed extension of time shall be offered to all registered speakers.

 

(5)   Approved the amendments detailed in 8.6 regarding delegations to attest the affixing of the Council’s Common Seal.

 

REASON FOR DECISIONS: Recommendations 2.1-2.3 are to deal with a number of situations that have arisen over the last year (or so). Recommendation 2.3-2.4 allows for greater flexibility to update a Council Procedure, rather than making this a Constitutional matter, when amendments are required. Recommendation 2.5 is for practical resource reasons for attesting/ sealing documents.

Audio Recording – 3 hours 25 minutes 12 seconds

 

The Service Director – Legal and Community presented the report entitled ‘Constitutional Amendment Report’ and highlighted that:

 

·       This item had been deferred from the Council meeting in November 2023.

·       The amendments related to the Terms of Reference of the Planning Control Committee, the removal of Appendices 1 and 2 of Section 8 and, should recommendation 2.2 be approved, there were some further consequential changes.

·       Recommendation 2.5 was a stand-alone recommendation and related to 8.6 of the report, not 8.7 as detailed in the recommendation.

·       The amendments on page 102 of the report had been superseded by proposed amendments circulated in the supplementary document.

·       Further proposed amendments to the report were detailed on pages 103 and 104.

·       The recommendations were brought to address various issues raised with speaking at the Planning Control Committee over the last few years.

 

Recommendation 2.1:

 

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis proposed and Councillor Ruth Brown seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Steve Jarvis proposed an amendment, that the word ‘ward’ be deleted in lines 2 and 11 of the proposed changes to section 8.4.5 9 (c) (iii) of the planning Committee Terms of Reference. Councillor Tom Tyson seconded the amendment.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Claire Strong

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Simon Bloxham

·       Councillor Matt Barnes

·       Councillor Richard Thake

·       Councillor Gerald Morris

·       Councillor Ralph Muncer

 

Points raised in debate included:

 

·       The proposed changes may cause confusion for Planning Officers.

·       Advice may be sought after a planning decision on enforcements.

·       Planning applications can involve more than one ward.

·       There should be a valid planning consideration provided to call in an application.

·       This recommendation could lead to Members making erroneous or political call ins.

·       Councillors are there to help residents, and Councillors should be able react when a resident asks for help.

·       Living and working in a single ward can cause some conflicts.

·       The proposed changes would strengthen the call-in process and should be used for genuine reasons.

 

Councillor Val Bryant sought a further amendment to the amended proposal, which was rejected by Councillor Jarvis.

 

The Service Director – Legal and Community clarified that another Ward Member can call-in an item for a Member that represented a single ward.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the amendment was carried.

 

Having been proposed by Councillor Dennis and seconded by Councillor Brown, the substantive motion was put to a vote, and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That Full Council approved the proposed amendments to the Planning Control Committee’s Terms of Reference as per 8.1 of this report, with the deletion of the word “Ward”, in lines 2 and 11 of the proposed changes to section 8.4.5(c)(iii) of the Planning Control Committee’s Terms of Reference.

 

Recommendation 2.2:

 

The Service Director – Legal and Community clarified that should recommendation 2.2 be accepted, then recommendations 2.3 and 2.4 would be considered.

 

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis proposed and Councillor Ruth Brown seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

(1)   RESOLVED: That Full Council approved the removal of Appendices 1-2 to Section 8 of the Constitution.

 

Recommendation 2.3:

 

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis proposed and Councillor Ruth Brown seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Steve Jarvis proposed an amendment, that the words ‘Ward Member’ be replaced by ‘Member’ in paragraph 1.5, that paragraph 1.9 be deleted, and that the recommendation read that the Council ‘agrees’ rather than ‘notes’. Councillor Tom Tyson seconded the amendments.

 

The Service Director – Legal and Community stated that a sense check would be applied should the amendment be passed.

 

Councillor David Levett having already submitted amendments as published with the agenda, agreed with the amendment proposal from Councillor Jarvis, and stated that should the amendment be carried, he would withdraw his proposed amendment relating to paragraph 1.9.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the amendment was carried.

 

Having been proposed by Councillor Dennis and seconded by Councillor Brown, the substantive motion was put to a vote, and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That Full Council agreed the proposed Procedure for Speaking at the Planning Control Committee (Appendix A), with the replacement of the words “Ward Member with Member” in paragraphs 1.5, and with the deletion of paragraph 1.9.

 

Recommendation 2.4:

 

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis proposed and Councillor Ruth Brown seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Steve Jarvis proposed an amendment to the recommendation and requested that the following be added to the end of the recommendation, ‘including changes to 6.1 and 6.2 to make them conform with the procedure as amended in 8.4.5 (c)(iii)’. Councillor Tom Tyson seconded the amendments.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the amendment was carried.

 

Councillor David Levett advised that his proposal to amend recommendation 2.3 and the speaking time and number of public speakers still needed to be moved.

 

The Chair advised that recommendation 2.3 had been amended, debated, and voted on, however Councillor Levett had prepared a further amendment to recommendation 2.3 ahead of the meeting.

 

The Service Director – Legal and Community – stated that Council was unable to return to recommendation 2.3 as it had been voted on. However, recommendation 2.4 if carried, would allow amendments to be made to the procedure following consultation with Group Leaders, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Control Committee and the Service Director – Legal and Community. An indicative vote as to whether Members supported the proposals put forward by Councillor Levett would be helpful to aide these discussions following the meeting.

 

The Chair suggested that there could be an additional recommendation and an indicative vote regarding the amendments put forward by Councillor Levett. Councillor Levett agreed to the suggestion, as the amendments had been put forward in November 2023, and there was no other alternative.

 

The Chair announced that there would be an indicative debate and vote on the proposals put forward by Councillor Levett.

 

N.B There was a break in proceedings at 23:37 the meeting reconvened at 23.47.

 

The Chair informed Members that they would consider recommendation 2.4, which had been amended and that, following a vote on recommendation 2.4, an additional indictive amendment 2.4(A) would be added and considered.

 

Having been proposed by Councillor Dennis and seconded by Councillor Brown, the substantive motion was put to a vote, and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That Full Council agreed to the principle, that if the Procedure at 2.2 required further amendment, that the Monitoring Officer may do so in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Control Committee, and the Group Leaders, including changes to 6.1 and 6.2 to make them conform with the procedure as amended in 8.4.5 (c)(iii).

 

Indictive amendment 2.4(A)

 

Councillor David Levett proposed an amendment to the speaking process that would allow objectors and supporter more opportunities to have a public say on any planning application. He proposed that rather than one group of objectors and supporter having 5 minutes speaking time, that there would be up to three groups of objectors and supporters, each having 3 minutes speaking time. Councillor Terry Hone seconded the amendment.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Claire Strong

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Tom Plater

·       Councillor David Barnard

·       Councillor Ian Albert

·       Councillor Matt Barnes

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Ralph Muncer

·       Councillor Steve Jarvis

·       Councillor Richard Thake

 

Points raised in debate included:

 

·       Concerns were raised over how much time a single public speaker would receive.

·       The Chair can extend the speaking time, with sufficient notice.

·       The speakers would need to strictly adhere to timings.

·       Generally, at meetings there are more objectors than supporters.

·       Member Advocates and a planning agent / representative would still get 5 minutes each.

·       There were concerns that if there was one speaker the time allowed would only be 3 minutes instead of the current 5 minutes.

·       Questioned whether the time allocated to one public speaker could be 5 minutes, at the discretion of the Chair.

·       It was important that public speakers attend, but maybe have 5 minutes for a principal speaker.

·       There were concerns that a speaker may bring others to increase the speaking time allowed.

·       Having 5 minutes for a single speaker and 3 minutes each for multiple speakers made more sense.

·       The reasoning was sound but in practice this would consume a lot of time.

·       Currently more than 1 speaker could share the ‘slot’, and for major applications public speaking could be increased to 10 minutes.

·       The public have a right to have their concerns heard.

·       Concerns regarding speaking time equality.

·       9 minutes maximum for multiple speakers and 5 minutes for a single speaker was more logical.

 

Councillor Levett amended his proposed changes and clarified that, should there be 1 speaker for the slot then they would have 5 minutes speaking time, if there were up to 3 speakers, they would have 3 minutes speaking time each.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, the indictive amendment was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

Whilst this is not a formal resolution, the following should be taken into account by the Monitoring Officer, in finalising the Procedure, in respect of section 1.5 to 1.8 be amended as follows:

 

(i)             Section 1.5, bullet points 1 and 3:

 

“Objectors” Group – a maximum of 3 persons against approval of the application, the speaking time will be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis, and the right to address the Committee is confined to persons who have previously made written representations on the application (either as an individual or as part of a consulted group during the consultation). 

 

“Supporters” Group – a maximum of 3 persons in favour of approval of the application and the right to address the Committee is confined to persons who have previously made written representations on the application (either as an individual or as part of a consulted groups during the consultation).

 

(ii)            Section 1.6 

 

In the case of objectors and supporters, no more than three people may speak on an application.

 

(iii)           Section 1.7

 

In the case of objectors and supporters the time allocated to each speaker is 3 minutes however, should there be only one objector or support the time allocated to each speaker is 5 minute. This time limit is strictly adhered to.

 

(iv)           Section 1.8

 

In the case of a Major application or being of significant public interest, the Chair may agree to extend the speaking time allocated to each “group”. Any request to extend the speaking time should be made to the Chair in writing by 5pm, three clear working days prior to the meeting date. The Committee, Member & Scrutiny Team will be advised/ and then advise all registered speakers of the extension. Any agreed extension of time shall be offered to all registered speakers.

 

N.B Councillor Tyler left the Chamber at 00:10 and did not return.

 

Recommendation 2.5:

 

The Chair advised that the recommendation should refer to ‘8.6’ and not ‘8.7’.

 

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis proposed and Councillor Ruth Brown seconded the recommendation as amended.

 

Councillor David Levett confirmed that he would be withdrawing the amendment proposed to this recommendation. 

 

On being put to the vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That Full Council approved the amendments detailed in 8.6 regarding delegations to attest the affixing of the Council’s Common Seal.

 

REASON FOR DECISIONS: Recommendations 2.1-2.3 are to deal with a number of situations that have arisen over the last year (or so). Recommendation 2.3-2.4 allows for greater flexibility to update a Council Procedure, rather than making this a Constitutional matter, when amendments are required. Recommendation 2.5 is for practical resource reasons for attesting/ sealing documents.