Agenda item

The Standards and General Purposes Committee has considered proposed amendments to the Council’s current constitution in relation to Scheme of Delegation to the Joint Executive Head of Planning Development; revisions to the Planning Committee Procedure Rules; and a revised Councillors’ Planning Code of Good Practice which together will help support the effectiveness of the Waverley Planning Committee.

Recommendation

The Standards & General Purposes Committee recommends that the Council approves:

1.    The proposed revised Scheme of Delegation to the Joint Executive Head of Planning Development, attached at Appendix 1A.

2.    The proposed revised Planning Committee Procedure Rules, attached at Appendix 2.

3.    The proposed revised Councillors’ Planning Code of Good Practice, attached at Appendix 3A.  

4.    That a consultation with councillors is undertaken to inform the content of a Memorandum of Understanding between planning officers and councillors.

27.1   Cllr Andy MacLeod introduced the report from the Standards and General Purposes Committee and moved the recommendations, which were duly seconded by Cllr Robini. Cllr MacLeod advised Members that the proposals had been very thoroughly discussed by the Committee and there had been some relatively straightforward amendments made. Officers had brought forward the proposals very quickly following the Council meeting on 7 June 2023 in order to maintain support for the new planning committee arrangements.

27.2   Cllr MacLeod briefly outlined each of the recommendations:

·       The first recommendation related to the revised Scheme of Delegation to the Executive Head of Planning Development and there were four key points to note: the requirement to put all planning applications for more than 25 dwellings to the Planning Committee had gone as this was a holdover from when there was a Joint Planning Committee; second, the 21 days cut off for members to request that an application be called in to the Planning Committee had gone as it was felt that this put too much pressure on councillors and did not give them enough time to properly consider applications and discuss it with the residents; thirdly the number of objections on householder applications required to trigger an automatic referral to the Planning Committee had been set at 10; and the equivalent threshold for non-householder applications (majors and minors) was 20 objections. These last two provisions did not prevent a councillor calling in an application that had fewer objections.

·       The second recommendation related to the Planning Committee Procedure Rules, which had been revised to provide more clarity around when councillors could address the committee, including Ward councillors on applications in their Ward. They also now made better provision for the Planning Committee to propose an alternative recommendation to that put forward by the planning officers.

·       The third recommendation was to adopt a revised Councillor’s Planning Code of Good Practice, which provided guidance to councillors on how best to engage with the planning process from start to finish, whether or not they were members of the Planning Committee.

·       The final recommendation sought agreement for the Executive Head of Planning Development to continue discussions with councillors about how councillors and planning officers engage, with the aim of drawing up a Memorandum of Understanding so that all parties were clear about their roles, responsibilities and expectations.

27.3   Cllr Follows spoke to thank officers for bringing these matters forward so quickly, and the Standards and General Purposes Committee for their careful consideration of the proposals. He reiterated that the rights of ward councillors to speak at the Planning Committee were set out in the Council Procedure Rules 23.1 and 23.2, and these had not changed. Also, the right of councillors to call an application to the Planning Committee, provided there were good planning reasons, was separate to the number of letters of objection that had been received. The proposals strengthened the ability of Ward members to properly represent the views of their residents and their Ward on planning matters.

27.4   During the course of the debate Cllr Goodridge and Cllr Martin reiterated their objection to the move to one Planning Committee and what they felt to be a reduction in the power of councillors. Cllr Goodridge was broadly supportive of the proposals but did not think it was practical to try and divide the discussion at the Planning Committee between questions and debate. He also objected to the provision whereby a committee member had to be present for the whole of any item in order to take part in the debate and vote. He felt that they should only be barred from voting.

27.5   Cllr Gale had reservations about the 10 objections threshold being too high in rural areas. Cllr Robini felt that the first two meetings of the Planning Committee had gone well and welcomed the new arrangements, as did Cllr Merryweather and Cllr Townsend. Cllr Clark welcomed the proposal in the draft Memorandum of Understanding for shared training with Members and officers. Cllr Hyman was concerned about a possible conflict with the Statement of Community Involvement and felt that there should be consultation with residents. Cllr Ward agreed with Cllr Goodridge regarding committee members being able to speak in the debate on an item even if they had missed part of the presentation or public speaking but should not be able to vote on the application.

27.6   Following up on this point, Cllr Goodridge proposed an amendment to the wording of paragraph 2.3 of the Planning Committee Procedure Rules, to delete the words “take part in the debate and”; and to the equivalent section of the Planning Code of Good Practice, paragraph 22.4, deleting the words “take part in the Committee discussion, debate and”. Cllr Goodridge explained that committee members should be able to take part in the participate in the debate on an application even if they had missed part of the presentation or public speaking. The amendment was seconded by Cllr Ward, and following a short debate was passed by general assent.

27.7   The Mayor invited Cllr MacLeod to sum up after which she put the four recommendations, as amended, to the vote together, which were passed with 32 votes in favour, 10 votes against and two abstentions.

27.8   Therefore, Council RESOLVED that:

          1.       the proposed revised Scheme of Delegation to the Joint Executive Head of Planning Development, be approved.

          2.       the proposed revised Planning Committee Procedure Rules, as amended, be approved.

          3.       the proposed revised Councillors’ Planning Code of Good Practice, as amended, be approved.

          4.       a consultation with councillors is undertaken to inform the content of a Memorandum of Understanding between planning officers and councillors.