Agenda item

(Director of Governance) To consider the attached report.

The Chairman of the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Panel, Councillor Sartin, introduced their report on the review of the operation of the Planning Committees and their Terms of Reference. This had originated from a PICK form that initially went to the Planning Services Scrutiny Panel and then on to the Constitution Scrutiny Panel, when they looked at the following matters:

(a)  The operation of the speaking arrangements and deadlines for submission of material to planning sub-committees; and

(b)  The terms of reference of the Planning Sub-committees and the District Development Control Committee.

The Committee noted that the arrangements had not been substantively reviewed since 2006.

This revised Article sets out the membership of the committees, responsibility for functions, terms of reference and participation and site visits rules. In particular it sought to draw a clear line between the main bulk of applications dealt with at area level and those which would be considered, either directly, or by reference, by the District Development Management Committee (renamed as part of these proposals).

The changes would also bring clarity to the role of the Chairman in controlling the business at the meeting, particularly for speakers. It was considered by the Panels that these rules should be implemented in advance of the completion of the Constitution Review to allow a period of operational experience to be undertaken with a check in 2016 to make sure that they were still appropriate.

The Committee debated the merit of having such a dogmatic statement as “Councillors may not retract a signed notice or seek to join the Subcommittee by signing a notice until the next Annual Council Meeting”. Would this be too constraining for members? They noted that this would not stop a new councillor, elected at a by-election from taking up their place on a sub-committee and would really only affect Area Plans South members. If a Councillor did not sign up to be a member on a planning sub-committee at the beginning of the year and then wanted to join half way through, would this be because of a specific application? It was all a matter of perception. Members accepted that it was a simple clearer system especially for the residents, and it had been in operation for a number of years and had not caused any problems.

The Committee discussed the proposal that ‘major’ applications (as defined by DCLG guidance), where the council was the landowner, should go to the District Development Management Committee (DDMC). Councillor Angold-Stephens said that in principle all applications should go to the appropriate sub-committee and could see no reason it should go directly to the DDMC. Councillor Philip noted that DDMC was covered by pro-rata rules and was properly represented. It showed the seriousness that applications like this were to be treated. Councillor Murray wondered if major applications should not be seen to be treated differently from other applications, especially if the council was the landowner.

Councillor Wixley wondered what the significance was in the change of name to the District Development Management Committee; what the DCLG guidelines referred to were; and if the mention of site visits were about the sub-committee visiting as a whole or were they about the individual visits undertaken by sub-committee members for their own information. The wording needed clarification. Councillor Sartin replied that by adding the word ‘formal’ at the start of the sentence it would signify that these procedures were for the formal site visits undertaken by the sub-committee as a whole. As for the DCLG guidance, they contained a lot of statistics and because of this were liable to be changed on a regular basis and so were not reproduced but were available on the web.  Councillor Philip added that it was now called Development Management within the council structure.

Councillor Dorrell asked what was the difference between a large scale application and a major one. He was told that for the Council as the landowner, a large scale application was for 200 plus properties and a major one was 10 plus properties.

The Chairman noted that a member of the public had wanted to make a comment on this item and asked that they did so at this point. The resident said that she felt strongly that major applications should not have gone to the DDCC. She knew her local area well and would like to keep the decisions local. This rule did not sit right with her. Why was it just for EFDC land, any decisions made should be kept local. Not many of the DDCC councillors were from Loughton and therefore did not know the area.

Councillor Sartin noted that as members of the Council they were there to represent the district as a whole

Councillor Murray added that the Loughton people believed that decisions should be kept local. Their view was that a recent decision made about the Burton Road development would not have been made anywhere else in the district.

Councillor Surtees expressed concern about decisions going against officers recommendations at a sub-committee and then going up to DDCC if they were liable to give rise to claims for compensation. Councillor Wixley commented that almost any decision made could end up at the claims stage.

Councillor Chambers noted that applications would still go to the relevant local parish or town council for comment.

Councillor Philips would not like the DCLG figures to be included as this was to go into the Constitution, but maybe officers could include indicative figures for information. As for the decision not happening anywhere else in the district, he disagreed. Any decision that did not go the way residents wanted could be said that this would not happen anywhere else.  As for DDCC not having many Loughton representatives on it, they had the more Loughton councillors than any other area represented on it.

The recommendations were then take to the vote and were passed. Councillor Murray wanted his vote against 4,(i) (c) to be recorded in the minutes.

RESOLVED:

That a report be made to Council recommending:

(1)        The adoption of the revised draft Article on the operation of and arrangements for planning committees including the proposals for the renaming of the District Development Management Committee;

(2)        The inclusion of the provisions within the Council’s Constitution with immediate effect subject to a review during 2016; and

(3)        The approval of consequential amendments to the constitution by the Monitoring Officer including the removal of old provisions and areas of duplication.