Agenda item

The Planning Code of Conduct (attached) was last reviewed in 2014/15 and adopted by the Council in July 2015.  The Committee is invited to consider whether a further review of the Code should take place.

The Chairman explained that members had been invited to a planning consultation by the Oakley Farm developer, and as this was on the edge of his ward, he had hoped to attend, but the invitation was followed by an email from the Head of Planning stating strictly that no members should attend.  A number of members had raised concerns in response and the Chairman had felt it would be useful for this committee to consider this element of the Planning Code of Conduct.  The Chairman had subsequently discussed this with the Monitoring Officer and established that the advice from the Head of Planning centred on members of the Planning Committee not being seen to have ‘behind closed doors’ meetings with developers. 

The Monitoring Officer stressed that there was no problem with any member attending a public event held by developers, the issue arose when developers held ‘private/member only’ briefings and invited members of the Planning Committee, in terms of public perception, whereby information was being passed to Members in a way that was not demonstrably transparent.  Members would be aware that Planning was a sensitive area, particularly for those parties who may be unhappy with a particular decision and therefore it was a sound principle for Planning Committee members to abide by to ensure transparency. 

The Monitoring Officer gave the following responses to member questions:

·         The circulation of late information by developers did constitute lobbying and whilst this was permitted, it was not necessarily something that members of the public were experienced in. 

·         In instances where the Planning Committee have concerns pertaining to highways related issues, the committee were advised to seek independent highway advice as the danger was that at appeal it would not be possible to successfully defend a decision or any application for costs.  This would be reflected in any legal advice to the Committee.

·         She felt that the distinction between resident association meetings was that they probably wouldn’t prevent an applicant/developer from attending.  The danger for a Planning Committee member was that they could take into account, when voting on an application, something said at a private meeting, which was not repeated at a public meeting.

·         There was no question of the integrity of members being challenged; it was fundamentally about public perception.   Even if meetings were recorded, this could result in the public perception being that information was shared that was not included on the recording.

The suggestion by members was that the Head of Planning should, if not already in hand, be providing a clear message to members that attendance at public meetings or public consultation events on development matters was not barred by the code of conduct, in addition to giving consideration to actively discouraging developers from inviting Planning Committee members to member only briefings. 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Code is fairly wordy and would benefit from a refresh, but stressed that the principles were there to protect both individual members as well as the Council.  She would review the document and consult Planning Committee members before bringing any proposed amendments to a future meeting of this committee.