Agenda item

Report of the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer recommending approval of a revised Planning Code of Conduct for adoption by the Council

The Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer introduced the Planning Code of Conduct, which had taken quite some time to finalise.  She explained that the existing version had been reviewed and amended by a Working Group of members of the Standards and Planning Committee and that the suggested revision reflected changes to legislation and the Code of Members’ Conduct.  It also aimed to reflect on best practice and distinguish where the provisions were relevant to all members and where only relevant to members of the Planning Committee.

Some of the main substantive changes were highlighted;

·         Appendix 4 of the Planning Code of Conduct, page 33 of the agenda pack - this had been the subject of significant debate at the Working Group.  The Appendix provides that developers are permitted to make presentations to members at a pre-application stage to allow the developer to take on-board any comments prior to submitting an application.  However, there was to be no further presentation from the developer to members once the application had been submitted. 

·         The bullet point on page 17 of the agenda pack relating to the noting of conversations had been struck out as it had been considered excessive and the italic bullet points added to ensure that at the point of any decision, all members were in receipt of all the relevant information.

The Monitoring Officer gave the following responses to member questions;

·         In relation to the flowchart on page 31 of the agenda pack, an arrow would be added from the ‘no’ additional information has not been provided, back up to the ‘planning application submitted’ box, to make clear that the process would have to start again. 

·         Whilst the continued presence of ward members who had concluded their public speaking at Planning Committee, could result in an accusation that the ward members was trying to influence members of the committee, the Monitoring Officer considered the risk to be minimal.    The committee felt that this paragraph should be removed from the document. 

·         Members of Planning Committee needed to approach applications with an open mind but this was not to say that they needed to have an empty mind. 

·         Members of the Planning Committee were permitted to attend pre-application meetings in their role as ward members and were not required to declare this at the Planning Committee meeting, though they might like to acknowledge that they had attended the pre-application meeting.

·         Planning Committee members could give residents advice on how best to make their case in support of, or in objection to a planning application but they were not permitted to enter into a discussion about how they might be intending to vote. 

·         This document was intended to provide the public with an understanding of how the council would approach the planning matters as the existing document was inconsistent with the current legislation and Code of Conduct.  

·         Planning Officers were experts engaged by the council to weigh all material considerations on planning applications and make appropriate recommendations.  If the committee was minded to disagree with the Officers recommendation, then it would be for the members to articulate the reasons for that disagreement.  It was not the role of the Officers to do this on behalf of the committee.  Officers were obliged to outline any risks associated with an alternative decision, which would sometimes relate to costs associated with appeals.  The committee would need to be clear about the reasons for proposing an alternative, though this was not to say that members are expected to recite specific paragraphs of policy or legislation.  Officers would draft the reasons for refusal based upon the reasons given by the committee.

·         Fettering of discretion provisions would not prohibit a member of the Planning Committee from considering the same matter at Parish and/or County level or indeed from voting differently at both.  Whilst the advice was that members could do this, they would need to approach it cautiously.  It was suggested that a member should be explicit about the fact that their vote at Planning Committee would be cast after consideration of all written material, Officers comments and debate at the Committee.

·         The Joint Core Strategy (JCS) would be part of the Development Plan, used for determination of planning applications and the adoption of a JCS would not necessitate a review of the Planning Code of Conduct.

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED that

1.    (unanimously) the reference to ward members withdrawing from the meeting once any public speaking has been completed be removed from the revised Planning Code of Conduct.

2.    (5 FOR and 1 AGAINST) subject to the correction of typographical, formatting and consistency errors the revised Planning Code of Conduct (attached at Appendix 1) be approved and recommended for adoption by Council. 

3.    (unanimously) the Planning Code of Conduct would be subject to a bi-annual review by the Standards Committee.