Issue - meetings

(Regulatory Services Portfolio) To accept the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) report (C-003-2024-25).

(1)        That the Cabinet accepted the recommendations of the PAS report;

(2)        That the Cabinet agreed to delegate authority to Lead Officers, together with the Portfolio Holder, to implement required changes, engaging with relevant Member Committees as appropriate; and

(3)        That the Cabinet agreed to the reporting of relevant associated Planning KPIs to Overview and Scrutiny and Planning Committees for monitoring purposes.

G Courtney (Service Manager (Planning Development)) reported that the maximum percentage of Major applications overturned at appeal that the Government considered acceptable was 10%. The Council had narrowly avoided the threat of designation with 9.8% of Major decisions overturned at appeal following decisions by its committees. If the Secretary of State had designated the Council for Major applications, then those planning fees would go to the Planning Inspectorate instead, but the Council would still be required to do a similar level of work in advising the Planning Inspectorate. Consequently, the PAS had approached the Council to help manage the risk by undertaking a review of our planning committee procedures. The seven recommendations made by the PAS were detailed in the agenda report. Therefore, a Special Working Group had been convened for 19 June 2024 that all members were requested to attend, along with the PAS representatives invited. The Constitution Working Group would then review all planning committee procedures on 11 July and report its recommendations to Council at extra meeting convened on 8 August 2024.

During discussions the following points were raised by both Cabinet members and other councillors present at the meeting.

·     Local say was pivotal in planning and that member representations were allowed.

·     The expertise of members and officers was crucial.

·     Planning reports needed to be accurate and right.

·     The criteria to bring applications to committee seemed vague, as the number of objections submitted was important.

·     The provision of ward members to speak at planning meetings would be necessary if the planning committees were reduced and not ward specific for the committee memberships.

·     If planning committees were reduced to two, could applications be divided into major and minor ones.

·     Area Plans South was a very large committee, so a selection of members for each planning committee was an option but with the ability of members to speak on local planning applications.

·     Restructuring the planning committees was a way to move forward as there was a gap to close in generating revenue for the Council.

·     Legal knowledge would be welcomed, as there was a lack of legal advice given at planning committee meetings.

·     Site visits were important, but it would be better if these were arranged before a meeting took place.

·     Confusion on green belt land designation cropped up at meetings.

·     There was a need to be able to call-in an application.

·     The training element was important.

·     Some planning officers were better at presenting reports at meetings than others.

·     This review was an opportunity to look at our systems for both members and officers, and perhaps combined training with planning officers working alongside members would make presenting less daunting.

Replying to a question that the stimulus for this review was because the Council was close to designation, yet no analysis was included, G Courtney advised the report provided the extent of the PAS review, but this data could be brought to the Special Working Group workshop on 19 June.

Planning Services Director, N Richardson, advised that the planning officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7