Agenda item

Report DLS087 from the Service Manager, Democracy.                   (Enclosure)

Decision:

1.      Members of the Development Control Committee should be required to sit in the first two rows of the council chamber when attending meetings of the committee.

2.      Members of the Development Control Committee should be required to make it clear, when addressing the committee, whether the points they are making are material planning considerations or not.

3.      The Development Control Committee be asked to consider, at the earliest opportunity and ideally at the same time as the discussion about alternative arrangements to the planning panel, the recommendations relating to site visits as set out in report DLS087 and to feedback to the Constitution and Accounts Committee. 

The Electoral Assistant presented report DLS087, which presented recommendations for improving administrative arrangements in relation to the Development Control Committee (DCC). These had arisen from various recent observations. The Monitoring Officer presented her comments at the meeting on each of the three recommendations:

Recommendation 3 – members currently sat where they would for a full council meeting, political groupings may need to be considered should any move be made, name placings would have to be rearranged to ensure that the members knew where they should sit, voting buttons at vacant seats would have to be immobilised but this may not be possible and so the committee clerk should check the voting numbers;

Recommendation 2 – members should be aware what constitutes a material consideration and should be asked to state what the consideration is, officers should also be able to confirm whether an issue is a material consideration or not;

Recommendation 1 – site visits should be permitted in accordance with probity in planning guidance in the constitution, unanimity was a difficult proposition, especially where there is a majority vote for a site visit with a ‘good’ reason provided at committee. [The criteria for a ‘good’ reason being in accordance with probity in planning guidance]. It was, however, important to encourage requests for site visits in advance of committee. There were several scenarios where the site visit issue may appear: pre-committee request made for no good reason, pre-committee request for a good reason, urgent request at committee with a good reason, urgent request at committee without a good reason.

Each was discussed in turn by the committee. Potential reluctance, as experienced previously, in relation to recommendation 1 was discussed. However, the benefits were sound and problems concerning voting buttons could be easily addressed. Acceptance of this recommendation was proposed, seconded and agreed.

In relation to recommendation 2, the committee considered that the recommendation clarified existing practice at the DCC meetings. Acceptance was therefore proposed, seconded and agreed. 

The Monitoring Officer provided further advice on recommendation 3 at the request of the committee. The constitution would have to be amended to implement this recommendation. Solutions to the four scenarios outlined earlier in the meeting were: a pre-committee request with or without a good reason could be determined by an officer and announced at committee; an urgent request at committee with a good reason officer decision at committee; urgent request for no good reason would be a unanimous vote by the committee.

A member suggested that the views of the DCC should be sought on how recommendation 1 would be practicable. He proposed that it be referred to the DCC for consideration at the earliest opportunity, ideally at the same time as the discussion about alternative arrangements to the planning panel, and to feedback to the Constitution and Accounts Committee. 

The Chief Executive advised that a process was needed for members to know when there was a ‘good’ reason for a site visit and that they could request this prior to a committee meeting. He acknowledged that often it only become apparent at the DCC meeting that a site visit is required and this should be clearly communicated, especially as site visits were often needed for complicated cases.

The proposal to refer the matter back to the DCC was seconded and agreed.