Agenda item

The public open forum will commence at 2.00 p.m. and the following formal business of the Council will commence at 2.30 p.m. or whenever the public open forum ends, if earlier.

Speaker 1

A question was put by Chris Davis from Market Deeping.

            I would like to ask the members of the Council why they consider such a large increase in allowances justifiable in a period of austerity and cutback in services?

As the question was not addressed to a specific member of the Council, the Chairman provided a response. He stated that an independent panel had collected evidence and made recommendations about Members’ allowances to the Council, which would be discussed during the meeting. Members of the council would have to vote to adopt a scheme of remuneration that could incorporate some, none or all of the panel’s recommendations.

Mr Davis stated that he felt the panel’s recommendations should have been broadcast more widely to allow broader debate amongst the electorate.

Speaker 2

Mr Davis put a second question, which was addressed to the Cabinet Member for Economy and Development.

            It has been now one-year from when the last house was occupied on "The Brambles Development" in Market Deeping. I would like to ask why the planning conditions given to the Developer have yet to be enforced?

To provide the context of Mr. Davis’ question for members of the Council, the Cabinet Member for Economy and Development stated that the 2014 outline planning permission for the development included a requirement that the applicable carriageway and footway surface courses should be appropriately completed within a three month period of the occupation of the last dwelling. As a result of the question, the issue had been raised with Lincolnshire County Council as the Local Highways Authority as it was responsible for the adoption of such highway infrastructure. Lincolnshire County Council had confirmed that discussion was underway with the developer with a view to getting the matters resolved.

Councillor King added that he would also specifically take Mr. Davis’ concerns regarding the time it had taken to resolve the matter to the County Council’s Highways Portfolio Holder.

Mr. Davis, as part of his supplementary question, stated that his query also related to public open spaces, the handover of allotments and ongoing debate about the public footpath.

The Cabinet Member for Economy and Development advised that the other matters raised could be quite complicated, with some variance in which body was responsible for their maintenance. He promised to look into the arrangements and feedback to Mr. Davis.

Speaker 3

Bourne Town Councillor, Paul Fellowes, made a representation on behalf of Bourne Town Council, which related to agenda item 8: recommendations from the Constitution Committee (questioning of public speakers at Development Management Committee).

Councillor Fellowes made reference to the existing provisions that allowed committee members to pose questions to anyone who spoke during the committee’s public speaking sessions. Bourne Town Council felt that the proposals, (which would only allow the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to ask questions of public speakers, with the other committee members only able to question the applicant, their agent or any other experts engaged to speak at a meeting), would take public speakers out of the democratic process. The Town Council could see no problem why committee members could not ask questions in relation to matters raised by public speakers.

Speaker 4

A statement had been submitted by Stephen Holland from Thurlby which related to agenda item 8: recommendations from the Constitution Committee (questioning of public speakers at Development Management Committee).

As Mr. Holland was unable to attend the meeting, his full statement was printed in full with the other questions and requests to speak that had been submitted by other members of the public. The full text of Mr. Holland’s statement is copied below.

The Constitution Committee at their last meeting, passed the following recommendation by four votes to one, which would stop members of the Development Committee questioning members of the public following their submissions to the Development Council in support or opposition to planning proposals.

“Questions may only be put by Committee members to the applicant, an agent and/or a specialist advisor/consultant whether speaking on behalf of the applicant, for the grant of an application or against the grant of an application. Questions must be relevant to the application being considered and limited to the following matters:

·         Anything that they have specifically referenced in their speech

·         Anything that is contained in the application

·         Anything that has been made in a representation by the speaker in respect of the application

Questions may be asked of public speakers by the Chairman and/or Vice-Chairman but only to establish the source of any material facts stated by a public speaker.”

I am opposed to this recommendation for the following reasons.

1.    In the background report supporting the recommendation, there is an assumption in 1.2 that ‘such questions are often not limited to points of clarification and it can be difficult for non-specialist speakers to respond.’

This assumption excludes members of the public who are in possession of the facts and can give the clarification needed as evidence in support of their submission.

2.    In 1.3 the general questioning of speakers by Committee Members would be limited to the applicant, an agent and/or a specialist advisor/consultant whether speaking on behalf of the applicant or against the grant of an application.

This excludes non specialist advisors from local communities, particularly where Neighbourhood Development Plans have either been adopted or are in progress. The interpretation of policies within Neighbourhood Development Plans may need to be heard for clarification at the committee stage. There appears to have been no recognition of the importance of Neighbourhood Planning, and how the committee may want to seek clarification from a representative of a Neighbourhood Planning Group who has given a submission, but may not be a specialist advisor.

3. The minutes from the Constitution Committee are not available to view, and I am told by Jo Toomey that these should be available before the close of business on Monday 20^th November. Submissions for the Council Meeting have to be made before 2.00 pm on Monday 20^th November. I would question and challenge whether it is constitutionally correct that all the information is not available in time to make reasoned submission based on the Constitution Committee minutes

The public open forum closed at 14:15.