Agenda item

(Deputy Monitoring Officer) To consider the attached report.

The Assistant Director of Governance outlined the agenda report, which concerned whether to recommend allowing members to opt in or opt out of membership of Area Plans Sub-Committee South during the municipal year or only at Annual Council. The second matter concerned the implications of an increase in planning applications to deliver the growth identified in the Draft Local Plan and how this would impact on the Council (officers and members), and how the wider review of the planning process should be phased. Counsel had commented that the Council probably had not received more pre-emptive applications because of the high percentage of green belt land in the District. The report outlined the scope of the review at points 5 and 6, and listed relevant documents. The Monitoring Officer also needed to be satisfied the Council was working within the law.

Area Plans Sub-Committee South

The Assistant Director of Governance said that this committee was significantly larger that the other two. The Area Plans Sub-Committees had been reduced to three by Ongar and Epping joining together to form Area Plans Sub-Committee East, while Area Plans Sub-Committee West had stayed the same ‘area’ membership. Area Plans Sub-Committee South’s membership had used to be pro-rata, was then limited to seventeen members and lastly that members had to opt in or opt out at Annual Council at the beginning of each municipal year, which was then fixed for that year. Therefore, Councillor D Sunger had recently had to wait until Annual Council this year to join the membership of Area Plans Sub-Committee South.

Councillor C C Pond said that in 2007 the membership had comprised all ward councillors. He said that regarding the motion proposed by Councillor S Murray, councillors should not have the choice to opt in and it should not be possible to opt out either. The Assistant Director of Governance replied that you could have the option to opt out but only Council could re-appoint councillors. Councillor S Kane commented that this should serve for the year or term. The Assistant Director of Governance commented that Democratic Services spent a lot of time chasing members of Area Plans Sub-Committee South to opt in / opt out. Councillor M Sartin said that Area Plans Sub-Committee East would become too small a committee if members were allowed to opt out. Councillor D Stallan asked for the Constitution to be kept as it was, that Democratic Services should not have to chase councillors to opt in / opt out, but if a member was elected during the municipal year, then to be allowed to opt in at the next full Council meeting.

Councillor D Dorrell proposed removing clause (3) and inserting a clause that stated, ‘Newly elected members may be allowed to opt in at the next full Council meeting, and that this could not be changed during the year’. This was seconded by Councillor C C Pond who said that another motion could be proposed at the next Council meeting.

Review and scope of the Planning Process

The Assistant Director of Governance focused on the scope of the review and that this was a place to start for the next meeting. The Council needed a requirement to work across a wider area especially when sites crossed into another authority, as with Harlow Council. This was to avoid discrepancies occurring, for instance, if Harlow dealt with a planning application relatively quickly yet this Council was still cogitating after a year. It was advisable to work with partner authorities and be mindful of similar practises, as there were a lot of strategic sites around Harlow, on which there would need to be discussions. He would ask the Monitoring Officer to speak to the Harlow Council Monitoring Officer.

Councillor J H Whitehouse asked how members would be involved in masterplanning. N Richardson replied that the masterplan would be situated around Harlow and encouraged members to get involved by attending any presentation meetings. Members would also be kept up to date as a masterplan evolved regarding the mix, type, density of housing and infrastructure (better / bigger roads, GP surgery, schools etc). Members would want to get the best deal for their electorate. Councillor M Sartin said that masterplan meetings would be very useful. N Richardson added that there would be a quality review panel, a panel of experts, that would have a say on design and layout.

Members gave guidance on the areas where such a review should begin at the next meeting.

            Recommended:

That a report be made to the Council recommending the Article 10,  Changes to Membership of Area Plans Sub-Committees, as below:

(1)    That the existing paragraph (3) of Article 10 of the Constitution be deleted and substituted with the words “(3) Newly elected members maybe appointed to the relevant Area Plans Sub-Committee at the next ordinary meeting of the Council” as set out in the revised Article 10 attached at Appendix 3 to this report;

(2)    The Assistant Director of Governance to ask the Monitoring Officer (Director of Governance) to speak to the Harlow Council Monitoring Officer on similarities in practises; and

(3)    That for the next meeting a report be made on:

(i)      Officer delegations;

(ii)    How objections are considered and resolved;

(iii)   How objections trigger a member review;

(iv)   Committee systems for members considering planning applications; and

(v)    Style of officer reports.