Agenda item

The Council’s Chief Planner has been invited to attend this meeting in order to follow-up on previous discussions with this Committee held in October 2009.

The Committee welcomed Bob McQuillan, Chief Planner, who was attending to feed back on responses to issues raised at the October 2009 meeting.

These included:

- Whether changes to sub-committee composition might assist in reducing sensitivities concerned in balancing the role of Councillors as decision-makers on planning applications as opposed to local ward representatives, and consequent perceptions of predetermination.

The Committee’s previous concerns and thoughts had been considered, but it was felt that the benefits of the current arrangements outweighed those of alternative approaches such as area based committees. Only one ward had a single councillor where this could prove especially problematic. On the occasions where ward councillors have wished to take a clear stance on a planning matter, there are two options which have been successfully employed. Either the councillor on Plan Sub Committee makes clear the need to avoid predetermination or the ward councillors address the planning committee and leave before the debate and decision takes place. These issues had been covered in new councillor induction sessions focussing on ethical issues. In general it was felt that there was scope for councillors to operate between decision-making and representative roles depending on the issues under consideration without compromising their effectiveness.

- Ways in which planning sub committees could express their disagreement 

with planning inspectors’ decisions where recourse to the courts was unlikely to be economic or effective.

In cases where an appeal decision is not challengeable through the Courts but 

where Committee have ongoing concerns about the decision, the Council sends a letter to the Quality Assurance section of the Planning Inspectorate highlighting the issues giving rise to disquiet. Whilst there was no direct measure of impact possible it seemed sensible to ensure that these concerns were properly registered so they could be taken account of when decision-making processes and effectiveness were under review..

- Publication of information on the Council’s website.

The material published on the website has recently been reviewed and updated, which will be continued to keep abreast of increasingly frequent changes in planning regulations.. Links exist to other areas of independent advice or redress depending on the issue being complained about (process or decision itself) such as the Ombudsman, the Planning Portal and elsewhere the Standards Committee.

- The need for clear summing up by Planning Sub Committee Chairmen

This is now reflected in a clear statement of the reasons for granting permission. Chairmen now ensure that, particularly where the officers recommendation is not agreed, the reasons for the decision is clear. It remains the case that items recommended for refusal on Section 4 of the agenda cannot be permitted unless the application is first deferred so that the reasons for the decision can be fully available.

The Chief Planner advises councillors if he feels that a particular course of action could lay the Council open to challenges resulting in a likelihood of costs being awarded against the Council.

- Quality Assurance processes on reports and information available to the sub-committees to ensure robust decision-making.

Application reports are subject to a number of internal checks so that no one officer is responsible for the report preparation, recommendation and presentation to Committee. A case officer’s report is checked by at least two other more senior officers before a recommendation and decision is made. Performance measures tended to focus on objective issues such as time taken to process applications rather than more qualitative issues such as the style or content of reports; although some comfort might be drawn from the high proportion of planning appeals upheld and the lack of adverse Ombudsman judgements in recent years.

- The order in which speakers address planning sub committees.

The present arrangement is that a speaker disagreeing with the recommendation speaks first. It is considered that this gives all speakers the best chance to put their views before sub-committees. It is quite often the case that neither speaker is a planning professional. Given the strength of views often involved in planning issues and the high take-up of the opportunity to address sub-committees on both sides, the absence of complaints or adverse comments about these arrangements would seem to indicate that they were not regarded as a problem.

The department lays a heavy emphasis on standards and ethical issues, with its own local guidance last reviewed in April 2009; the Standards Committee would be invited to contribute thoughts as and when this was next put forward for review and revision.

The Committee thanked Mr McQuillan for attending the meeting and exploring and discussing these issues further.