Agenda item

Councillors Chard, Clucas, Savage** and Stennett.

[**Councillor Savage is currently undergoing Planning Committee training and will be eligible to take his place as a voting member next month.]

*Councillor Nelson as substitute

PL:  CN wants to sit as substitute this evening, but has not attended Planning Committee since November, and the substitution process requires one-in-three attendance; prior to that, he attended quite regularly.  In order for him to be formally allowed to sit tonight, Members need to vote for the cessation of the relevant standing order under Rule 3.

CH:  is not too fussed if CN is allowed to sit or not, but wants to make the point that if tonight’s decision is challenged and our stated practice is that substitutes need to attend one in three meetings, we could be leaving ourselves open by letting someone participate in the meeting outside the usual rules.  Is concerned that this angle could be used by an objector.

GB:  Members are empowered to suspend standing orders under the Constitution.

PL, in response:

-       confirmed that this is permitted in procedural rules, and Members have the power to suspend the rules should they wish.

CH:  this was not his question. Would suspending the rules and allowing CN to sit provide additional leverage for someone challenging our position?  Would it not be safer to keep the rules of Planning Committee attendance in place on this occasion and review them later?

PL, in response:

-       suspension of the rules is an option available to members and it is unlikely to make a difference to anyone wanting to challenge the decisions made

CL, in response:

-       MB is present to substitute for LS; had understood CM was present to substitute for AC, but CM has confirmed that he is to be replaced by CN to act as AC’s substitute tonight if Members agree to that.

HM: also has reservations about suspending the rules, while having sympathy with CN and his reasons for wanting to be on Planning Committee tonight for this important meeting.  Could the alternative be that he is allowed to speak before the item he is interested in but not participate in the meeting as a substitute?

GB:  that is an option which can be considered.  It is up to Members to decide. 

Vote taken on suspension of standing order for this meeting only, to allow CN to participate

12 in support

0 in objection

2 abstentions

GB:  CN is therefore allowed to substitute for AC, instead of CM.

[CM will remain at the meeting as an observer.]

CH:  if the standing order is suspended for this meeting only, it gives the impression that Members don’t have to stick by the rules.  We need to review this, as there may be other occasions when a similar situation arises.  Maybe we should change the attendance requirement from one-in-three consecutive meetings to a certain number of meetings per year.

PL, in response:

-       the constitution working group is currently looking at the substitution criteria, and has its next meeting at the start of June.  It will report to Council regarding general constitutional changes in July.  Some Members of Planning Committee have given their views to the constitution working group but if anyone has any further views, these should be put forward to Rosalind Reeves in Democratic Services to be picked up by the group going forward.