Agenda item

Report of the Chairman of the Constitution Committee.                (To follow)

Decision:

 

The Council approves the recommendations of the Constitution Committee as follows:

 

 

1.             Budget and Policy Framework

 

            That the Constitution be amended at Article 4.12.2 as shown below in bold

 

4.21.2 Process for developing the Budget

 

The Cabinet will publish in its Schedule of Decisions a timetable for making proposals to the Council for the adoption of an annual budget, including those decisions which are required by detailed at Schedule 2 of the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001 (as amended) which are required to be made before the 8th February in any financial year and its arrangements for consultation after publication of those initial proposals. The Chairmen of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees will also be notified. The consultation period shall be a period of not less than two weeks.

 

2.            Development Management Committee – report LDS249

 

            That no amendment is made to Article 9.1.9 a)(viii) and agrees that the proposed change with regard to public speaking be undertaken on a trial basis by the Development Management Committee for six months, meaning that during that period, Articles 9.1.9 a)(viii) and Article 9.1.9 a) (v) will be varied as follows:

       

 2.1     Article 9.1.9 a) (viii)

 

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.

 

2.2      Article 9.1.9 a) (v)

 

            Each person is allowed to speak for a maximum of three minutes and may be required to answer questions in accordance with Article 9.1.9 (a) (viii).

 

3.            Employment Committee

 

That Article 13 of the Constitution is amended as follows:–

 

3.1       Article 13.4.1 (ii) to be amended to read:

 

To oversee the recruitment and selection process of the Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer and make recommendations to Council in this respect

 

 3.2      Article 13.4.1 (v) to be amended to read:

 

To review the appointment of an external investigator to carry out an investigation on behalf of the Committee where necessary.

 

3.3       A new paragraph to be inserted at 13.4.1 (iii) as follows:

 

            To appoint Strategic Directors, and posts falling within the level of Assistant Director

 

3.4      Existing paragraphs 13.4.1 (iii) to (ix) to be renumbered (iv) to (x) to accommodate the insertion of the new paragraph (iii) above.

 

The Chairman announced that two written representations had been sent to the Chief Executive which related to the recommendations of the Committee on the questioning of public speakers at meetings of the Development Management Committee. Copies of both of these submissions had been circulated for Members’ reference prior to the meeting.

 

The Chairman of the Constitution Committee proposed the recommendations in report number LDS250, which it had made at its meeting on 13 November 2017. The first recommendation related to a proposed change to the budget procedure rules. The second recommendation related to the Committee’s proposals in relation to the questioning of public speakers at Development Management Committee meetings was to hold a 6-month trial period where committee members would not be able to ask follow-up questions of members of the public who spoke at Committee. They would still be able to ask questions of the applicant, the applicant’s agent and any technical experts speaking for or against an application. The final recommendations related to changes to the terms of reference of the Employment Committee. The proposals were seconded.

 

A number of members spoke against the proposition to prevent Development Management Committee members asking questions of members of the public. They suggested that members of the public could feel under pressure presenting a speech but seemed to relax when answering questions. Some members also suggested that three minutes was not sufficient time to present a full argument and withdrawing a members’ ability to ask questions meant that, members of the public would lose the opportunity to expand on any matters raised within their speeches. Reference was made to specific examples where the questioning of members of the public had revealed further information that had a significant impact on the decision that was ultimately made by the Committee.

 

Reference was made to an argument that had been used during the Constitution Committee meeting, which intimated that the questioning of members of the public could turn into cross-examination and become aggressive. This was refuted and the counter-argument put that if any questioning did become a cross-examination, it could be managed by the Chairman.

 

An amendment was proposed:

 

            That the Council agree to refer the recommendation back to the Constitution Committee to set up an all party working group to look into the workings of the Development Management Committee including consultation with the public and the Development Management Committee with special regards to public speaking.

 

The amendment was seconded.

 

Members who spoke in support of the amendment stated that no evidence had been presented that indicated members of the public had found questioning to be intimidating. There was also concern that the proposal had been raised by the Chairman of the Development Management Committee without discussion with the wider Committee membership. Some members cited concerns about parity, as the majority of the people who would have the opportunity to expand on their 3-minute statement through questioning would be speaking in favour of an application. One member indicated that questions formed part of the wider body of evidence that informed the committee’s decisions. Members also felt that having members ask them questions made public speakers feel valued and that they had been given a fair hearing. They concluded that while a working party may come up with a recommendation that reflected the proposal put forward by the Constitution Committee, any decision would benefit from wider discussion. Without the ability to ask questions, one member indicated that they would not feel that they would have sufficient evidence to fully scrutinise the recommendations made by officers. The importance of local knowledge in determining applications was also highlighted.

 

A number of comments were made in relation to openness and transparency. It was consequently stated that as a proactive Council, members needed to question the public in a kind and proper manner.

 

The suggestion was raised that the proposal may have been put forward as a potential tool to control the length of meetings.

Those speaking against the amendment stated that they were concerned about members of the public feeling intimidated. In contrast applicants and agents were prepared for this type of questioning. One member stated that the removal of the questioning session could encourage more members of the public to speak as currently some may be put-off by the prospect of being questioned. There was also the concern about the impact of Committee members reportedly asking leading questions during a meeting of a quasi-judicial committee. Reference was made to other local planning authorities that did not allow any questioning of speakers. It was suggested that the proposal to restrict the people to whom questions could be put would provide a compromise between the current position and not permitting any questions to be put. It was also noted that the proposal would not prevent all questions being asked to speakers and that if a member of the committee had a question, it could be put to them by the Chairman who would ensure that it was relevant and appropriately put.

 

In summing up, the proposer of the original motion reiterated that the Constitution Committee had not recommended an amendment to the Constitution but to hold a trial period to test the effects of the change.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and lost.

 

A vote was taken on the proposition to amend the budget procedure rules, which was carried, as was a vote taken on the proposed changes to the terms of reference of the Employment Committee.

 

Further points were raised in relation to the recommendation concerning the Development Management Committee, highlighting the importance of material considerations in the Committee’s decision-making. It was also suggested that the feeling of intimidation did not only come from being questioned by Councillors but having to make a statement and face those questions in front of a large audience of members of the public. If public speakers raised material considerations, the Committee would still be able to make reference to these during debate, and if necessary, the Chairman could ask a speaker to return to clarify a point, as had happened on previous occasions. Information was given about the wider public speaking arrangements that were in place at neighbouring authorities.

 

A request was made that a recorded vote be taken. As the request was supported by ten members of the Council, in accordance with article 4.13.4 of the Council’s Constitution, a recorded vote was taken.

 

 

For	Against	Abstain
Councillor Mrs Bosworth Councillor Bryant Councillor Chivers Councillor Cooke Councillor Dobson Councillor Exton Councillor Goral Councillor Jeal Councillor King Councillor Lee Councillor Mapp Councillor Dr. Moseley Councillor Neilson Councillor Robins Councillor Jacky Smith Councillor A. Stokes Councillor I. Stokes Councillor Brenda Sumner Councillor Brian Sumner Councillor Wilkins Councillor L. Wootten Councillor R. Wootten	Councillor Ashwell Councillor Baxter Councillor Broughton Councillor Dilks Councillor Forman Councillor Griffin Councillor Mrs. Kaberry-Brown Councillor Kingman Councillor Morgan Councillor Powell Councillor Sampson Councillor Selby Councillor Stevens Councillor Wood
22	14	0

 

The proposition was carried

 

17:20 – as the meeting had been in progress for almost three hours, article 4.6.4 of the Council’s Constitution required that a vote be taken to extend the meeting. It was proposed, seconded and agreed that the meeting be extended by an additional 30 minutes.