To consider the report of the Planning Committee Task and Finish Group and make recommendations to the Portfolio Holder for Regulatory Services, Housing and Commissioning [Central]

The Planning Services Manager introduced the Planning Committee Task and Finish Group Report.  He explained that the review process had been undertaken during a time when the Planning Service had been under significant pressure.  The Task and Finish Group had concluded that it was not an appropriate time to make significant changes to the delivery of Planning Committees.  Members noted that the report recommended retaining the three Planning Committee model but with a further review in six months’ time once SAMDev had been adopted. 

The Planning Service Manager continued that the Task and Finish Group had concentrated on changes to practices which would improve consistency and efficiency and would ensure that processes were robust. 

Members noted that evidence had not been obtained from all interested parties but Members and Parish and Town Councils had been canvassed for their views and the Group had undertaken a site visit to Chester Council to observe its Planning Committee at work. 

Members discussed delegated decisions.  The Planning Service Manager confirmed that the 96% target rate set by the previous Planning Task and Finish group but it remained at 94%, which was lower than the neighbouring authorities of Herefordshire and Chester West.  The Planning Services Manager noted that some Parish and Town Councils saw the process of delegation as undemocratic, but stressed that whether or not an application was delegated or referred to Committee it had to be considered in the same way.  He continued that it was important that the right applications were placed on Planning Committee agendas for consideration and this would involve an element of trust between Officers and Members.  Members were referred to bullet point 4 in the recommendations, where the Group recommended that the process to decide which applications were delegated or considered by the Planning Committees had greater transparency. 

Referring to bullet point 5 in the recommendations, the Planning Service Manager noted that it was difficult to ensure that all reports were completely consistent but Officers had been provided with a report template and guidance on the focus for each section of the report.

Members discussed the provision for Member speaking on applications within their Wards.  A Member asked whether this recommendation 7 included changing the current system to allow the Committee Member to vote on applications within his or her Ward.  The Planning Service Manager confirmed that the Task and Finish Group were not recommending a change to this procedure.  The Chairman confirmed that both the Committee Member and Non-Committee Member would be allowed to speak for five minutes from the speaker’s table, and would be available to answer questions if required but would retire to the back of the room and not participate in the debate.  It was agreed that this recommendation would be re-worded for clarity.  The Planning Service Manager confirmed that this change would require an alteration to the Constitution.  Members suggested that both Planning Committee and Non-Committee Members should remain at the committee table but the Planning Service Manager explained that this was not desirable due to the potential issue of undue influence. 

Referring to bullet point 8 in the recommendations, the Planning Service Manager commented that the Group had witnessed the web broadcast of the Planning Committee in Chester and although some Members of the Group were in favour of this, the majority favoured only audio recording.  The survey results supported recording of meetings. 

In response to a Member’s query, the Planning Service Manager explained that the recommendation to hold site visits on a separate day was not mandatory but was suggested to give the Committee greater flexibility when required.  Members raised concerns that if this became standard practice it would unnecessarily increase Members time commitment and decrease the number of Members attending site visits and potentially may have a detrimental effect on the decision making process. 

A Member suggested that bullet point 9 be strengthened to state that Members who could not attend site visits regularly speak to their Group Leaders with a view to being replaced on the Committee.  The Planning Service Manager explained that this was not the view of the Group, who felt that it was up to the individual Member to decide whether they were able to fully commit to the time demanded.  He continued that the perceived importance of site visits had been shown in the questionnaire responses from both Members and Town and Parish Councils and this would be re-enforced in the future Member training programme. 

A Member suggested that moving the Committee start time to 10am would enable the Committee to consider a greater number of applications.  The Planning Service Manager explained that Members had decided the start time of 2pm and they were able to change the time of the Committee if they were minded to.   

The Planning Services Manager explained that some Town and Parish Councils had expressed dissatisfaction with the level of information received on the progress of planning applications, the final two recommendations addressed these issues.  In answer to a Members question he confirmed that Planning Officers would make their recommendation and for housing applications instructions are then sent to the Legal Section for the drawing up of Section 106 agreements which can add to the time taken before a planning decision can be issued.  He confirmed that the time taken to complete the S106 and release the planning decision can take a number of months.  A Member suggested that it would be useful to request further information from the Legal Section about the length of time of this process.

In response to a Member’s question on appeals against both Officer and Committee decisions, the Planning Services Manager explained that the County experienced the second highest number of appeals in the Country but had the highest number of appeals dismissed.  He continued that it was difficult to identify possible appeals and that the Planning Inspectorate was not always consistent in its decisions.  He added that lessons were learnt from upheld appeals and the Committees received the appropriate training. 

Referring to the recommendation to review the situation in a further six month’s time a Member asked if would be possible for the Group to consider planning enforcement and the defence of conservation areas.  The Member was advised that this was not within the remit of the Planning Committee Task and Finish group which had been established to consider the operation of the Planning Committees.  If Members were minded, it would be possible to add this topic to the Committee’s work programme for future consideration. 

Agreed:

                  i.        that subject to the rewording of bullet point 7 in the Recommendations to improve clarity, the Planning Committee Task and Finish report accepted and formally presented to the Political Structures Monitoring Group for consideration; and

                 ii.        that a representative from the Legal Section be invited to a future meeting of the Committee to answer Members questions on the process for Section 106 Agreements.