Agenda item

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25 JANUARY 2018

Minutes:

The Legal Representative reported comments received from Councillor Dykes’ which stated she could not comfortably agree the Minutes as a true reflection on the meeting.

 

Councillor Dykes had received no satisfactory explanation as to why a refusal notice was issued when no vote had been taken.  Whilst she understood the Council’s position in that refusal was inferred with the Committee not ratifying the decision, she questioned whether that was acceptable for such an important application. 

 

There was a significant difference  between “ratifying a motion to approve planning consent” and deciding retrospectively that in not ratifying the motion, it was refused.

 

Members were then advised that the decision made by the Committee on 25 January 2018 took immediate effect.  The Minutes were simply a record of what had already taken place.  The discussion was recorded by the Council, the Minute taker had listened very carefully to that recording and the Minutes set out what was said together with the terms of the resolutions.  By law and the Council's Constitution, Minutes were submitted to the next meeting of the Committee for confirmation.  The Council's Constitution was clear in that the Rules of Procedure (Regulation 16) set out that the Mayor (or Chairman in this case) would sign the Minutes of the proceedings at the next suitable meeting.  The Chairman would move that the Minutes of the previous meeting be signed as a correct record.  The only part of the Minutes that could be discussed was their accuracy. 

 

The Legal Representative was aware of the complaint about the subsequent decision to issue a decision notice however, that was a complaint not about the accuracy of the Minutes but about actions taken subsequent to the meeting and was not an item on the agenda for discussion at this meeting.  It would be very wrong to confuse the two.  It was important that Members either agreed the Minutes or, if they believed the Minutes did not reflect their statements or the terms of the resolution, then a discussion could take place.  However, it was not an item to raise new matters that were not before the original Committee and set out in the Minutes as a record of their decision.  On that basis the Chairman was requested to put the Minutes to the meeting.

 

Whilst Councillor Bennett did not dispute the accuracy of the Minutes, he asked why the Council had issued a refusal notice following the previous meeting held on 25 January 2018 during which the only resolution made was not to ratify Members’ previous decision.  It was agreed that a written response would be sent to Councillor Bennett.

 

Councillor Wilkins sought clarification on the Legal Representative’s statement that decisions ‘took immediate effect’ given that the Committee’s previous decision taken in October did not do so.  Whilst she accepted the Minutes were, overall, an accurate record, she wished to make one minor change and also requested that scope be made for discussion under ‘matters arising’ as discussion was required on the serious issues that had been raised.

 

Councillor Wilkins was informed that the resolution made in October was subject to call-in by the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State.  It was also subject to a Section 106 Agreement which, although virtually finalised, was not completed before receipt of the Planning Inspector's decision.

 

The Chairman confirmed that the issues above would not be discussed at this meeting as ‘matters arising’ was not an item on the current agenda.

 

Councillor Wilkins stated that the vote taken at the last meeting was ‘not to ratify’ the Committee's previous decision.  Following the motion which was carried, the recording clearly captured the officer suggesting reasons for refusal as set out on page 94 of the October agenda.  The Minute therefore should clearly set out that the reasons for refusal were discussed after the vote was taken.  In this regard, Councillor Wilkins proposed that the final line of the resolution in the Minutes be amended to read:- 'The Chief Planner's representative then suggested a reason for refusal of the application which would be as set out in the previous agenda set out on page 94 of the report, which was accepted.’  Members and officers agreed to the amendment.

 

Councillor Wilkins also questioned why, following the vote taken by Members not to ratify the previous decision’, discussion suddenly turned to officers suggesting reasons for refusal.  The Legal Representative agreed to respond to this in writing.

 

Councillor Bennett then asked why no provision was made on the agenda for matters arising and matters outstanding from previous meetings.  It was agreed that written response would be sent to Councillor Bennett.

 

RESOLVED that subject to the minor amendment proposed by Councillor Wilkins, the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2018 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Supporting documents: