Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2006 (attached).

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2006 be taken as read and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To declare interests in any item on the agenda.

No declarations of interest were made pursuant to the Council's Code of Member Conduct.

(Deputy Monitoring Officer) To consider the attached report.

(a)            Chairmen of Area Plans Sub-Committees

Councillor K Wright explained the background to his approach to the Deputy Monitoring Officer for clarification of the role of a Chairman of an Area Plans Sub-Committee at the District Development Control Committee in relation to referred items.

The Committee considered the submissions of Councillor Wright, the views expressed by the Deputy Monitoring Officer and Sections 5 ('dual hatted' councillors) and 6 (fettering a councillor's discretion) of the Planning Protocol.

The Committee noted that when a matter was referred to the District Development Control Committee by an Area Plans Sub-Committee, an officer written report was submitted to the former which included the views expressed by the Sub-Committee and the reasons for referral.  Having regard to the possibility of new information being received between the meetings, further advice being given by the Planning Officers and different questions and points being raised by members, the Committee were of the view that when a referral was considered by the District Development Control Committee the application started afresh.  As a result the Chairman of an Area Plans Sub-Committee and members of that Sub-Committee were under no duty at the District Development Control Committee to present the views expressed by the Sub-Committee.

            RESOLVED:

            (1)            That the Deputy Monitoring Officer draft proposed amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of the Planning Protocol to make it clear in relation to items referred to the District Development Control Committee by an Area Plans Sub-Committee that the Chairman of the Sub-Committee and any Councillors who are members of both Committees are under no duty to support the views of the Sub-Committee at the District Development Control Committee; and

            (2)            That the Deputy Monitoring Officer circulate a draft of the proposed amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of the Planning Protocol to members of the Committee for approval with a copy also being sent to Councillor Wright; and

            (3)            That the Planning Protocol be republished in due course incorporating the agreed amendments.

(b)            Planning Applications submitted by Councillors, Officers and Others

The Deputy Monitoring Officer drew attention to Section 22 of the Planning Protocol which required District councillors and officers to inform the Monitoring Officer of the submission of their planning applications to the District Council. He advised that the Protocol linked with the delegated authorities held by the Head of Planning and Economic Development which did not extend to the Head of Planning and Economic Development determining a planning application from a councillor or officer of Planning Services or from any officer acting as an agent for an applicant.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that the procedure had come under scrutiny recently because the fact that an applicant was a serving councillor had not been relayed to a case officer in Planning Services.  The resultant procedural problems were still being reviewed but it had become clear that the requirement in the Protocol to simply notify the Monitoring Officer might not be sufficient to ensure that a Case Officer appreciated that an application could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Recommendation:

To consider a letter dated 6 August 2006 from the Clerk of the Stapleford Abbotts Parish Council.

(Monitoring Officer) At its meeting on 18 July 2006, the Committee requested that the Clerk of the Stapleford Abbotts Parish Council notify the Monitoring Officer of the Parish Council’s formal response to the comments made by the Committee about a lack of transparency of some of the Parish Council’s administrative procedures.

Attached is a copy of a letter dated 6 August 2006 from the Clerk of the Parish Council.

Members considered a letter from the Clerk of the Stapleford Abbotts Parish Council in response to the comments made by the Committee about a lack of transparency of some of that Council's administrative procedures.  The Committee noted that the Parish Council had altered some of its procedures since the matters of concern had been considered by this Committee.  Members of the Committee who were also Parish Councillors advised of the procedures adopted in their local councils in relation to consideration of planning applications.

            RESOLVED:

            That the Stapleford Abbotts Parish Council be advised that its amended procedures are considered satisfactory and that this Committee has no other suggestions to make in relation to the consideration of planning applications by Parish and Town Councils bearing in mind the deadline for a reply to the District Council and the need not to involve the Parish Council in more expense.

(Monitoring Officer) To consider the attached report.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that at the last meeting, members had sought clarification of the extent of support to be provided to Monitoring Officers following the transfer of the system for assessing allegations to principal authorities.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that the Standards Board had acknowledged that, whilst most authorities had welcomed the benefits of a local system, a number had concerns about managing the function, particular those authorities which had a large number of Parish and Town Councils in their area.  Members noted that the Standards Board had indicated that it be focusing its work on supporting authorities with guidance and advice and would be making representations for Standards Committees and Monitoring Officers to be properly resourced.  Attention was drawn to the specific support projects currently being undertaken by the Standards Board.

Recommendation:

(1)    That the decision of the Adjudication Sub-Committee be noted; and

(2)    That further consideration be given to the advice issued to members in July 2005 on interests arising from membership of outside organisations and other public authorities.

(Monitoring Officer) At a meeting on 5 September 2006, the Adjudication Sub-Committee appointed by the Standards Committee, considered an allegation about the conduct of District Councillor Mrs D Collins by Mrs J Abel, Clerk of the Ongar Town Council on behalf of the Town Council. The complainant had been of the view that Councillor Mrs Collins had breached the Code of Conduct by failing to declare a prejudicial interest and withdraw from a meeting of the Council’s Area Plans Sub-Committee held on 21 September 2005 when consideration had been given to a planning application for a medical and day care centre at The Borough, Ongar.

The Sub-Committee decided that the Councillor Mrs Collins had failed to comply with paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct by not declaring a prejudicial interest.

The Sub-Committee also decided that no sanction be imposed having regard to:

(a)   Councillor Mrs Collins had not sought any personal of financial gain,her sole aim had been to secure an improved health facility for the benefit of Ongar residents;

(b)   she had acknowledged that she had not fully appreciated the difference between the former test of a pecuniary interest and the relevant test of a prejudicial interest, and that she should have given more careful consideration to the public perception of her actions;

(c)   she had acknowledged her mistake, apologised for not taking greater care and for the inconvenience caused, and had indicated an intention to attend future training in relation to the Council’s Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol.

The Sub-Committee further recommended that this Committee be asked to clarify and update the advice issued to members in July 2005 on interests arising from membership on outside organisations and other public authorities. The advice previously issued is attached together with suggested amendments to paragraph 5 and the Appendix shown in italics.

The Committee noted that at a meeting on 5 September 2006 the Adjudication Sub-Committee appointed by this Committee had considered an allegation made about the conduct of District Councillor Mrs D Collins by Mrs J Abel, Clerk of the Ongar Town Council on behalf of the Town Council.  The complainant had been of the view that Councillor Mrs Collins had breached the Code of Conduct by failing to declare a prejudicial interest and withdraw from a meeting of the Council's Area Plans Sub-Committee 'C' held on 21 September 2005 when consideration had been given to a planning application for a medical and day care centre at The Borough, Ongar.

The Committee noted that the Sub-Committee had decided that the agreed facts, represented a failure to comply with Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct.  However, the Sub-Committee had further decided that no sanction should be imposed on the Councillor having regard to:

(a)            Councillor Mrs Collins had not sought any personal or financial gain, her sole aim had been to secure an improved health facility for the benefit of Ongar residents;

(b)        she had acknowledged that she had not fully appreciated the difference between the former test of a pecuniary interest and the relevant test of a prejudicial interest, and that she should have given more careful consideration to the public perception of her actions; and

(c)        she had acknowledged her mistake and apologised for not taking greater care and for the inconvenience caused, and had indicated an intention to attend future training in relation to the Council's Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol.

The Committee were advised the Sub-Committee had further recommended that the advice issued to members in July 2005 on interests arising from membership on outside organisations and other public bodies should be clarified and updated.  The Committee reviewed this advice.

            RESOLVED:

            (1)            That the decision of the Adjudication Sub-Committee be noted; and

            (2)            That the suggested changes to Section 5 and the Schedule summarising the advice on interests arising from membership on outside organisations be agreed; and

            (3)            That Paragraph 7.1 and the footnote on the Schedule be expanded to explain that compliance with the guidance applies to informal settings where the member is conducting the business of the office to which he has been elected or appointed or is acting as a representative of the authority.

(Monitoring Officer) To note the attached schedule.

The Committee noted the current position on allegations made to the Standards Board for England regarding District and Parish/Town Councillors.

(Monitoring Officer) The calendar for 2006/07 provides for meetings of the Committee on 27 February 2007 and 25 April 2007.

Additional meetings can be arranged as and when required by the Committee.

The Committee noted that the calendar for 2006/07 provided for meetings of the Committee on 27 February 2007 and 25 April 2007.

Members were advised that reports were expected shortly from the Deputy Monitoring Officer who had completed two local investigations into allegations made about District Councillors.  Members noted that in the event that in one or both cases, the Investigator found there had not been a breach of the Code of Conduct it would be necessary to hold a meeting of this Committee in order to decide whether members agreed with that finding.  In the event the Investigating Officer found that there had been a breach in one or both cases, it will be necessary to appoint an Adjudication Sub-Committee to determine the matter.

            RESOLVED:

            That arrangements be made for a meeting of the Committee to be held on 14 November 2006 to consider the reports of the Investigating Officer and/or to appoint Adjudication Sub-Committees to determine the issues.