To receive a report on the proposed changes to the delivery of Planning Services in Herefordshire.  (Report to Follow).

The Cabinet Member Environment and Strategic Housing, Councillor JG Jarvis, presented the report and advised Members that the Council should consider improving and innovating its planning system, as not doing so could negatively impact on the Council’s reputation, open the processes to challenge and could affect the forthcoming CAA inspection regime.

 

Councillor JG Jarvis stated that the development industry, applicants and agents had received the opportunity to feed into the process.  The Audit Commission report emphasised the need for the Council to upgrade its practices to best enable the facilitation of appropriate development in general and specifically the Growth Point initiative.  Members were advised of the options for their consideration, the detail for which were outlined within the report; it was however emphasised that retaining the status quo was not an option, as this would not improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the planning system nor end the confusion of the current system. 

 

The Cabinet Member Environment and Strategic Housing informed Members that he recommended Option 1 for Council’s agreement, as a single Committee of 19 well trained councillors.  This approach would allow a re-modelling of the whole service to reflect best practice.  He highlighted the role of Members within the proposed planning system and emphasised their important role as community leaders and their engagement with those involved in the application process. Acting as advocates, all ward members would be able to debate, discuss and would be free to get involved when an application in their ward was being considered.  Members would be expected to ensure local views were expressed in discussions with officers in order that decisions could be made as to whether or not to call in the application or deal with it under delegated powers. Ward members would also be responsible for discussing with local parish and town councils potential 106 agreements and to liaise with the 106 officer and case officer. Councillor JG Jarvis advised Council that the rights of ward members at planning meetings would include opening the debate, making short closing remarks, and with the discretion of the chairman being involved in the debate, though Members would leave the chamber for the vote.

 

Members were informed of the call in process proposed and Councillor J Jarvis stated that local members would have an early discussion with the case officer on planning applications within their ward.  In considering whether an application is called in Members would need to give sound planning reasons, however in addition to the current system, sensitivity would become a reason for call in.  This major concession was totally dependant on the local knowledge of the ward member. 

 

Councillor JG Jarvis stated that the current referral system was flawed and would be disposed of within the proposed Option 1.  However should Members vote against the recommendation of officers, a mechanism would provide for the Head of Service to bring the item back to the next Planning Committee meeting with three reports (as outlined in the report) which would cut down on the appeal application and the cost and officer time involved.  It will also demonstrate professionalism to the public.

 

Councillor JG Jarvis outlined how the proposed change would affect members of the public, which included providing clarity in the way in which we deal with applications, no confusion if members vote against officer recommendation, members of the public would be able in those circumstances to make amendments to satisfy the committee, the applicant could expect an answer from their ward member on their view and what support they could expect, applicants might in certain circumstances change their applications to satisfy members’ concerns to allow an application to go through.  Councillor RJ Phillips seconded the recommendations and reserved the right to speak later in the debate.

 

Councillor B Hunt moved two amendments to recommendation (a) as follows:

(i)                  delete the word ‘single’ and replace with ‘strategic’.

(ii)                Add to the end of the final sentence ‘that all Councillors be appointed to one of two area planning committees on an appropriate geographic basis’.

Seconded by RI Matthews who reserved the right to speak later in the debate.

 

Following advice from the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services, regarding provisions relating to suspension of political proportionality, amendment (ii) was altered to read ‘that all Councillors be appointed to one of three area planning committees’.

 

Councillor B Hunt advised Council that, whilst he welcomed the majority of the report, the proposed changes had a direct negative impact on democracy, a cost he was unwilling to support as he stated that the removal of the majority of Members from Planning Committee deliberations was to the detriment of the authority.  He raised concerns regarding the unsubstantiated comments made within the Audit Commission’s report and questioned the need to tamper with the existing committee system.  In emphasising the view that any revised planning system needed to meet local needs and circumstances he stressed the expectation of the public in their local Councillor having a vote on planning issues.  Councillor B Hunt supported the view that the current referral system would discontinue.

 

Councillor MJ Fishley requested to know what the consequences would be of not actioning the Audit Commission’s recommendations.

 

Councillor PJ Edwards requested of the Chairman that consideration be given to Members speaking more than once in the debate in order to allow new issues pertinent to the discussion to be aired.  Councillor PJ Edwards additionally asked that, should a single committee be agreed in principle, that Council considered suspending political proportionality (as with Regulatory Committee and Strategic Monitoring Committee) as this would demonstrate the importance of democracy.

 

From her personal experience with the Audit Commission, Councillor AM Toon urged Council not to act too rashly and raised concerns regarding the possibility of changing the right of response process and questioned the fairness and transparency of a new system as it would change the responsibility of local members.  Councillor AM Toon additionally stated that a new planning committee system would see an increase in the cost of site visits.  The point was also raised that the current system supports the deliberations of complex planning matters e.g the recent application concerning the proposed development of 50+ houses on the former SAS site; whilst this application was opposed in Central Planning Committee (in applying the principles of the UDP), it was expected that in onward referral to main Planning Committee this decision could be overturned.

 

Councillor MD Lloyd Hayes emphasised that Councillors were elected to represent the public and those who did not have a vote on planning issues would be denied the opportunity to represent their constituents fully. In supporting the amendment, Councillor Lloyd Hayes drew attention to the current political representation of the area Planning Committees and expressed concern that major planning issues may be agreed at a single planning committee, decisions which may be opposed to the wider public opinion.

 

Councillor PA Andrews advised Council that whilst undertaking the Planning Services Scrutiny Review, no figures had been made available to assess the potential cost savings of a revised planning system.  Councillor Andrews supported the concerns raised regarding the views of the Audit Committee and stated that political proportionality should not be required within a new planning committee structure.

 

Councillor RI Matthews, in seconding the motion advised Members that the recently published LGA guidance document ‘Probity in Planning’ stated that; ‘the intention of the guidance is not to suggest that there is one best way of doing things.  Local circumstances may well provide good reasons for local variations of policy and practice’.  Councillor Matthews informed Council that the new Shropshire Unitary Council, comparable in its rural geographical nature to Herefordshire, had established three area planning committees.  He expressed concern that the Audit Commission report lacked an understanding of rural authority issues and that the report’s recommendation went against current Government guidelines which sought to deliver more power to the locality through parish councils and ward members.  On this basis, Councillor Matthews stated that any revised planning committee, other than that based on the amendment, was diluting democracy and could prove to be costly due to the likelihood of an increase in site visits required and which could be overturned in a future administration.

 

Councillor PM Morgan echoed the comments made regarding lack of information on supposed to efficiencies and cost reductions.  However, should cost savings be delivered and the planning system improved, it would be to the benefit of both the Council and the public.

 

Councillor TM James informed the Council that he took exception to the comments of the Audit Commission that referred to Councillors as being too ‘parochial’, when government policy focussed on the ‘localism’ agenda.  Reference within the Audit Commission report on the cost of appeals related to UDP costs.  Councillor TM James was of the view that the planning system should not be a process of ticking boxes and should a single planning system be agreed, he considered it to be an undemocratic option which would deliver centralist policy and politicisise planning unnecessarily merely to satisfy a non democratic quango.  Councillor TM James commented that issues of the relationship between Members and Officers, and Officers and the public needed to be considered and be more constructive.  He stated that as the sole Liberal Democrat Member on the Northern Area Planning Committee he worked with fellow members to determine decisions, and as such the current planning arena was an area within which all political groups worked together well and went on to say that it should be recognised that Council would at times make wrong decisions.  Councillor James stated that as a general election would be called in the forthcoming months, dramatic changes would be expected in National Government which would directly impact on local government.

 

Councillor SJ Robertson, speaking in support of the amendment to retain three committees, stated that she wished to protect her vote on an area planning committee and expressed the view that Members on a single planning committee would have difficulty in forming a view on applications outside their area, and as such the number of site visits would increase.  Councillor Robertson emphasised the importance of relevant training for all members as all Councillors would need to be kept updated on planning issues.  Councillor Robertson supported the removal of the referral process.

 

Speaking in support of the amendment, Councillor A Seldon expressed concern that Councillors’ planning role was being removed as he stated that the electorate considered this function to be important.

 

Councillor JD Woodward spoke in support of the amendment and stated that the retention of three area planning committees was vital as they were representative of the areas under consideration and emphasised the importance of the Members’ vote, although was in agreement that the referral system should be stopped.  Concern was expressed by Councillor Woodward that local ward members’ views could be ignored within the proposed single planning committee system and that planning decisions could be made by those who were unfamiliar with the localities.  She raised additional concerns that the current planning committee was not reflective of the county as it did not include representation from one of the Market Towns (Leominster) and a letter from a concerned Leominster organisation was read out to that effect.

 

Councillor JP French acknowledged the comments raised in debate regarding the Audit Commission report, however she emphasised that the debate on the need for a revised planning system had matured and that a new style system would enable members to be less constrained in their involvement in planning issues than as currently allowed.  A revised system would provide Members with the ability to attend and listen to discussion.  Training would need to be an integral part of supporting a new system as ward members would need to use planning reasons for call in processes.  Councillor French emphasised that efficiency savings would need to be identified and delivered, however the delivery of a streamlined system was not about delivering service cuts or diminishing the democratic role.  The concerns raised in the letter was acknowledged.  She stated that having one committee and clarifying the role of the ward representatives would prove effective and emphasised that it was right that local members would not have a vote with applications in their wards and it was the role of Members to articulate their views together with the community’s and make representation to the committee.  Councillor JP French stated that she had come to the conclusion that a single committee was the way forward and would be supporting Option 1.

 

Councillor JK Swinburne stated that there was a perception that retaining the status quo would be beneficial as it delivered locally determined decisions as opposed to a centralist approach.  However, should the system be changed, reassurance was required that strong mechanisms would be in place for all members to air their views and that these views should be acted upon appropriately.  Member briefings on any new system was key to providing clarity and assurance in the process.

 

Councillor PJ Edwards expressed his support for a single planning committee as it provided more freedom for local members to fully represent their communities.  He expressed the view that some issues would need to be resolved e.g hearing process, and he stated that further consideration needed to be given to this as the current proposal seemed to replace the referral system with another.

 

In his closing remarks as the proposer of the amendment, Councillor B Hunt urged members to maintain Herefordshire’s democratic image by voting for the amendment.  He emphasised that whilst he agreed in principle with the main points of the report, and acknowledged the Cabinet Members consultation with political groups, he considered retaining three area planning committees of paramount importance.

 

A named vote was taken on the amendment, which was lost.

 

In moving the debate to consider the recommendations as outlined in the report, Councillor RJ Phillips underlined planning’s quasi judicial function and its relationship with the legal process.  He highlighted that is was usual practice in many local authorities not to have all members represented in the planning committee system.  Councillor RJ Phillips stated that further detail would be discussed within the cross party Constitutional Review Working Group.  It was his view that the role of the local member be reconfigured in order that they be invited to contribute both at the opening and closing stages of the debate; as this would better inform the planning committee of all relevant local issues.  Councillor Phillips stated that the planning system needed to be clear and transparent to the public and to applicants and emphasised that training would not to be limited to 19 members as all members must fully understand the quasi-judicial role and system of planning.

 

Councillor RV Stockton welcomed the change in the focus of relationship between elected members and planning officers, but stated that this aspect needed to be carefully considered in order that Members were assured that it was effective in practice.

 

Councillor KS Guthrie sought clarification on the role of the ward member in relation to a single planning committee.

 

Councillor RH Smith stated that he deeply regretted the shortcomings of the Audit Commission’s report and viewed its assertions as questionable.  He stated that given that increased delegation was implicit within the proposal, he sought assurance that ward members would be advised by officers if an application would be delegated in order that the call in process could be considered.  Subject to these views, Councillor RH Smith informed Council that he would support the proposal.

 

Councillor ACR Chappell announced his support of a single planning committee but requested that the proposed size be reconsidered.  He expressed the view that consideration needed to be given to the relationship between multi member wards and the planning committee as the opening and closing contributions of up to three members (possibly of differing political parties) per application could prove lengthy.  Councillor Chappell welcomed the ability that the proposed system would provide for him to make representations on behalf of his ward and stated that such planning systems were being established across the country

 

Councillor RC Hunt welcomed the proposal and specifically the fact that local members could take part in the debate. He stated that the public on some occasions considered Members to be disinterested in their issues due to current constraints.   Councillor RC Hunt noted the views articulated from the letter in respect of Leominster and stated that he was aware of them.  In light of this, he expressed the view that issues relating to representation be considered within the membership of the planning committee.  Additional consideration would need to be given on the frequency of meetings.

 

Responding to the comment regarding multi member wards, Councillor DB Wilcox stated that, regardless of political make up, members worked well for the benefit of their residents.  He welcomed the opportunity the proposed system would have to increase ward members contribution and represent their electorate and stated that he would support Option 1.

 

Councillor MAF Hubbard stated that the rationale behind establishing a single committee in order to deliver savings and clarity was acknowledged, but sought assurance that the full experience of members would be considered when representation was determined.  Councillor MAF Hubbard proposed an amendment to recommendation (a) which he considered would address these concerns and ensure that a breadth of experience was brought to the table:

 

‘… and that the membership of the Planning Committee is carefully negotiated to ensure geographical representation of Hereford City, all our Market Towns and rural areas under a nem com rule which would enable Council to suspend political proportionality’.

 

Councillor MAF Hubbard stated that this would provide a democratic balance which could otherwise be viewed as a deficit e.g. representation of City, Market Towns and rural areas.  He expressed his support to a single system.

 

The motion was seconded by Councillor PJ Edwards.

 

Councillor JP French suggested that this issue be considered by the Constitutional Review Working Group.  This view was supported by Councillor TM James and he stated that there were related issues, such as political proportionality which would need to be considered as a whole.

 

Councillor JK Swinburne left the meeting.

 

The Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic provided advice that this issue would be appropriate to be considered for further discussion at the Constitutional Review Working Group.  On a technical legal point, and for accuracy the wording of the amendment was changed to include ‘subject to the nem com rules on suspension of proportionality being adhered to’.  Councillor Hubbard agreed to the amend the wording of the amendment to; ‘that membership of the Planning Committee be carefully negotiated to include geographical representation as best can, in line with political proportionality’.

 

Responding to the questions raised during debate, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Strategic Housing stated that ward members would be informed of planning applications and that provision of call in would be made available subject to meeting the relevant criteria.  He supported the opportunity for CRWG to consider the issue of geographical representation of Planning Committee membership, which would remain politically proportionate in line with the current Planning Committee (as they both consisted of 19 members).  Assurance was given that appropriate training would be provided to Members.

 

Members were requested to consider the recommendation (a) of the report ‘The Council agrees Option 1 as set out in the report, namely to establish a single Planning Committee (19 Members)’ and advice given that should Council agree in principle to the following amendment, the detail could be considered at a later date ‘that membership of the Planning Committee be carefully negotiated to include geographical representation as best can, in line with political proportionality’.

 

A vote was taken on the recommendation and motion which was carried.

 

RESOLVED That Council agreed in principle:

 

(a)   The Council agreed Option 1 as set out in the report, namely to establish a single Planning Committee (19 Members)

(b)   agreed the revisions to the scheme of delegation to officers;

(c)   noted the proposed changes to the role of members in the planning process;

(d)   agreed the revised arrangements for handling planning applications proposed to be determined contrary to officer recommendation; and

(e)   authorised the Monitoring Officer and the Constitutional Review Working Group to reflect these changes in future revisions to the Constitution.

 

 

Councillors Greenow and Durkin left the meeting