Agenda item

This report recommends a number of changes to the Constitution to support the implementation of reforms under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, including the creation of a single Planning Committee.

 

The report of the Monitoring Officer recommended changes to the Constitution to enable implementation of planning committee reforms under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.

 

It was proposed that a single Planning Committee be created in place of the existing 3 Area Planning Committees. This Committee to be politically balanced and comprising 13 Members.  A number of consequential changes were required to ensure that the planning committee would be able to immediately discharge all of the functions previously undertaken by the Area Planning Committees.   These were detailed in 4.10 of the report.

 

Any Member who was not appointed to serve on the Planning Committee would retain their usual right to attend as set out in the Committee Procedure Rules.

 

Amendments to Committee Procedure Rule 15.25 and paragraph E8.7 of Protocol E – Members’ Planning Code of Good Practice were also recommended to streamline the deferral process where the Planning Committee were minded to reach a decision contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services; and that planning applications submitted by the Council were to be determined by the Planning Committee  rather than full Council respectively.

 

Concern was expressed that the introduction of a politically balanced planning committee rather than a geographic ward-based model could affect local decision-making.   On the grounds that Government legislation was not yet finalised Cllr Thornewell proposed and Cllr Athwal seconded that

 

(1)            these proposals be deferred until the regulations were confirmed and to provide more time to consider viable options. 

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.4, Cllr Thornewell requested that the names for and against the motion or abstaining from voting be taken down in writing and entered in the Minutes.  This was seconded by Cllr Clokey.

 

Members voting in favour:

 

Cllrs Athwal, Banks, Barton, Boxall, Bridge, Clokey, Cope, Crisp, Dean, Hoskins, Hood, Oakley, Oliver, Pilgrim, Roud, Tatton and Thornwell.

 

Total = 17

 

Members voting against:

 

Cllrs Betts, Bell, Bennison, Boughton, Brown, Cannon, Chapman, Coffin, Davis, Hammond, Harman, Hickmott, Hudson, Keers, King, Lark, Mehmet, McDermott, Palmer, Rhodes, Tanner, Taylor, Tunstall and Williams.

 

Total = 24

 

Members abstaining:

 

Cllr Dalton

 

Total = 1

 

Total members available to vote = 42

 

Motion (1) defeated.

 

Concern was expressed about the proposed role of full Council in planning decisions and whether applications for planning permission submitted by the Council should continue to be determined by full Council. Reference was made to previous commitments in respect of the planning application for the replacement Angel Leisure Centre, which it was felt should be honoured.  A motion to refer the Angel Leisure Centre planning application to full Council was withdrawn by the proposer (Cllr Hoskins) with the consent of the seconder (Cllr Bridge) and the full Council.

 

On the grounds of transparency and public interest, Cllr Hoskins proposed and Cllr Bridge seconded that:

 

(2)            all applications for planning permission submitted by  the Council should be determined by the Full Council.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.4, Cllr Hoskins requested that the names for and against the motion or abstaining from voting be taken down in writing and entered in the Minutes. This was seconded by Cllr Banks.

 

Members voting in favour:

 

Cllrs Athwal, Banks, Barton, Bennison, Boxall, Bridge, Clokey, Crisp, Cope, Dean, Hickmott, Hood, Hoskins, King, Oakley, Oliver, Palmer, Pilgrim, Roud, Tatton, Taylor and Thornewell.

 

Total = 22

 

Members voting against:

 

Total = 0

 

Members abstaining:

 

Cllrs Bell, Betts, Boughton, Brown, Cannon, Chapman, Coffin, Davis, Dalton, Hammond, Harman, Hudson, Keers, Lark, McDermott, Mehmet, Rhodes, Tanner, Tunstall and Williams.

 

Total = 20

 

Motion (2) won

 

There was further discussion on the proposed changes to Committee Procedure Rule 15.24 and whether planning applications deferred contrary to the recommendation of the Director of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services should be referred to full Council. In the view of the Monitoring Officer any proposal to this effect would negate the original motion and would not be allowed. 

 

Therefore, it was proposed by Cllr Boughton and seconded by Cllr Taylor that individual votes on recommendations (a) to (e ) be taken to enable Members to vote against those they didn’t support.  This was supported unanimously.

         

In recognition that the proposal ensured that planning applications were determined in the most efficient and equitable way, that planning committee reforms were required under legislation; that the proposals resolved cross-border application issues;  aligned with anticipated Government requirements

and that action now would allow the Borough Council to adapt at its own pace,  Cllr Taylor proposed, Cllr Boughton seconded and Council

 

RESOLVED:  That

 

(1)             the creation of a politically balanced Planning Committee, comprised of 13 Members, be agreed;

 

(2)             the deletion of the existing 3 Area Planning Committees be agreed;

 

(3)             the consequential changes to the Constitution as set out at paragraph 4.10 of the report and attached at Annex 1 be agreed;

 

(4)             the amendments to Committee Procedure Rule 15.24 as set out at paragraphs 4.14 to 4.16 of the report and attached at Annex 1 be agreed; and

 

(5)             subject to retaining E8.7 and E8.8 (applications submitted by the Council) the amendments to the Members’ Planning Code of Good Practice as set out at paragraphs 4.17 to 4.18 of the report and attached at Annex 1 be agreed.

 

[In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.6, Cllrs Hood and Thornewell requested that their vote against the proposals be recorded in the Minutes.]