Agenda item

Two Member questions had been received, as follows:

1.            Question from Councillor David Willingham to Chris Gomm (Head  of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance) and Chair of Planning – Councillor Paul Baker

It is evident from Planning Committee reports the Council recognises the necessity of compliance with its s149 Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) as part of the planning process.  Could the Chairman please confirm whether officers and committee members are aware of the principles established in Brown [2008] EWHC 3158 (Admin) https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/3158.html and Bracking [2013] EWCA Civ 1345 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1345.html which suggest to comply with the PSED, <<There is a need for a "conscious approach" and the duty must be exercised "in substance, with rigour and with an open mind">> , does the Chairman share my concerns using the same boilerplate text in multiple different planning reports may be non-compliant these principles, and can he assure me advice will be sought and followed to ameliorate the situation?

Response from Chris Gomm (Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance) and Chair of Planning – Councillor Paul Baker

Planning Officers have due regard to the Equality Act 2020, and its stipulations, when assessing the implications of all development proposals.  Members are also reminded of this duty, and their obligations under the Act, within committee reports.  It is important that committee reports are proportionate in their detail to each issue that is addressed and as such reference (in committee reports) to the public sector equality duty is necessarily light in many cases.  Going forward, the planning team can look at whether this is something that needs to be refined.

Supplementary question

In the current agenda, three of the applications contain the same error relating to the public sector equality duty, calling the legislation Equalities Act 2010 rather than the Equality Act 2010.  In the minutes of the last meeting, which are the official record of the meeting, the only reference to equalities in one of the applications says “with the gradient at 1:12 it is accepted that people will have to be pushed in a wheelchair”, but provides no reasons why this is acceptable.  I am genuinely concerned that this council could be successfully judicially reviewed because the PSED is boilerplate in the report.  In light of this being the final session before the election, can I get an assurance that officers will discuss this issue with One Legal and the Monitoring Officer to ensure performing the PSED is incorporated into new member training on planning?

Chair response

Would like to give reassurance and requested a copy of the question in writing to fully consider all aspects of it.

2. Question from Councillor David Willingham to Chris Gomm (Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance) and Chair of Planning – Councillor Paul Baker

At paragraph 9.2.1 of Part 5D Planning Protocol of Cheltenham Borough Council’s Constitution, it is clear planning applications submitted by the Council itself must be determined at Planning Committee.  Could the Chairman please advise how this should work when Cheltenham Borough Council is a potential financial beneficiary outside of the planning process, such as being a land-owner willing to conditionally dispose of assets to the applicant, but is not the applicant; and in the interests of openness, transparency, and compliance with the Nolan Principles would he consider how such situations should be best dealt with in future by the Planning Team and Planning Committee?

Response from Chris Gomm (Head of Development Management, Enforcement and Compliance) and Chair of Planning – Councillor Paul Baker

Land and property ownership is not a material planning consideration; members of the planning committee are provided with training that, amongst other things, makes this very clear.  Members of the committee are therefore unable to take into account council ownership, and any associated financial benefit, when they consider and vote on any application.  Such situations are very common and it is not considered that there is any need to change current practices.  We will however look to reference council ownership in committee reports in future, for information purposes only.

Supplementary question

This isn’t a question about planning, but about probity.  Is it not the case that situations where the council stands to benefit financially outside of planning legislation, not section 106 and not Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) but where we are a landowner where we would gain from the approval of a planning application is it not in the public interest of open public decision making, that those applications should come to committee and that interest be declared. Would the chair consider joining me in asking the Monitoring Officer to look at reviewing the constitution to cover those kinds of cases so that they come to committee and the council is open and transparent that it is a potential financial beneficiary?

Chair response

Happy to do that and in the answer did state that we would look to reference council ownership in individual reports in the future for that transparency point. Happy to do that and take that on board.