Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

Planning Committee Members considered a report in January 2014 examining the council’s performance with planning appeals and the recent appeal case relating to the redevelopment of 32 – 38 Station Road Cambridge.

 

The committee agreed a number of follow up actions including the holding of a facilitated member review session and the introduction of a new convention to be followed in the event that the committee is minded to refuse/approve major/significant planning applications against the advice of its officers. The review session was held on 14 April and was supported by external facilitators.

 

Planning Committee considered a further report in late April detailing how the new convention might be introduced and agreed by a majority that Environment Scrutiny Committee should be asked to look at this issue.

 

Environment Scrutiny Committee is asked to review the operation of the convention being proposed, to take account of the previous comments of Planning Committee and make a recommendation to Full Council that the convention is introduced.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and

Transport

Recommended to Council:

       i.          To approve an amendment to the constitution to include a new convention for the Planning Committee involving an adjourned decision making process for appropriate cases.

     ii.          The convention process to be introduced for a 12 month trial period from September 2014. The convention to apply in the circumstances where the committee resolves that it is minded to refuse or approve major applications schemes contrary to the recommendation of its officers and be subject to the operational arrangements outlined in Appendix C.

   iii.          To delegate to the Heads of Legal and Planning Services authority to amend the constitution to include the new convention, amend procedures, update guidance, provide training as necessary to ensure the smooth implementation of the new convention.

   iv.          To request the Head of Planning Services to provide a review report to Environment Scrutiny Committee on cases where the convention has applied, after 12 months operation.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Planning Services.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Suggested the wording of Appendix B paragraph 3.7 (P132) of the Officer’s report should be reworded so that the Head of Planning Services would advise Chairs (or Vice Chairs in the Chair) to initiate the protocol if Councillors appeared to be minded to go against Officer recommendations.

     ii.          Appendix C: References to “deferral” in the report should be changed to “adjourned” as proceedings would be put on hold then resumed from the same point at a future meeting, not restarted.

   iii.          Appendix C: Suggested that members of the public speak once, there was no need to hear their comments again when the committee reconvened after an adjournment, unless Council agreed a mechanism to allow public speakers to address the Planning Committee in exceptional circumstances.

   iv.          If the Planning Committee was quorate, it could consider applications. If a Member was not present when the application was first considered, they should not participate in the discussion/decision when a committee reconvened after an adjournment.

 

Officers undertook to revise text in the Officer’s report in light of the above comments; then include the amended text in the report to 24 July 2014 Council. The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport plus Environment Committee approved the above text changes nem con (recommendations in the Officer’s report were generally not affected; except (i) where “adjourned” replaced “deferred”).

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Planning Services said other local authorities generally allowed members of the public to address a planning committee once (on the same application). If the City Council were to give two opportunities, it would be a way of mitigating the risk of challenge to the process but would add to the time needed to consider planning applications. The protocol would have to operate with the same members taking the decision at the second meeting (i.e involving those who had heard the public speaking at the first meeting) to address this. There would be an opportunity for Councillors to review their decision after one year.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.