Issue - meetings

A debate on a petition received under the Council’s petition scheme

A member asked for guidance on behalf of members of the Planning committee in participating in the debate bearing in mind that a planning application for the Leckhampton site had been submitted.

In response the Head of Legal Services, advised Members that they may be wearing several hats in relation to this matter.  Firstly as a member of Council they were considering this petition, secondly all Members were formally involved in approving the JCS as a member of Council and thirdly some members would be dealing with the planning application for this land as a member of the Planning committee. It was common practice for members of a local authority to wear more than one hat and therefore he saw no impediment which would prevent any member from participating in the debate on this petition. What was important was that members recognised their respective role in each of these processes and kept an open mind as they moved from one process to another. On that basis a member could participate in the debate on the petition and still take part in a future debate at Council on the JCS as well as dealing with a planning application at Planning Committee in respect of this land.

The chair of the Planning Committee, Councillor Coleman, stressed that he was very capable of keeping an open mind. He was concerned that the advice just given appeared to contradict legal advice that the developers for this site could not attend a recent member seminar as this could prejudice future decisions on the application.

The Head of Legal Services explained the difference in status between the petition debate and the recent member presentation (which had been in private) and said that the subject of developer presentations was being taken forward as part of the current review of the Authority’s planning code of conduct. He stressed that it was a personal decision for all members as to whether to participate in the petition debate and he repeated his advice that it would not be necessary for any member of Planning Committee to exclude themselves from this debate simply because of their involvement in the impending decision on the planning application for the land.

Other members of the Planning committee felt the guidance was not clear and on that basis Councillors Coleman, Fisher, Jeffries and Fletcher left the meeting. 

The petitioner, Chris Nelson, introduced the petition.

He stated that the petition had received over a thousand signatures and it had been relatively easy to get people to sign it. He was confident that with a bit more time he could easily have got the support from 80% of residents in the Leckhampton ward, i.e. at least 4 000 people. The most significant concerns of residents were the traffic problems that the developments would cause in Shurdington and Church Road. A 40% increase in housing numbers in the ward would have a significant impact on the local infrastructure and compromise business and local traffic in the area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8