Agenda item

Motion submitted by Councillor Summers regarding Planning.

Councillor Summers presented his motion regarding Planning and Councillor Roy seconded the motion, and it was opened for debate.

Members made comments as follows:

·         Councillor Connor stated that in his 11 years as a County Councillor he has the misfortune to endure many poor motions brought by the County Council and, in his opinion, this motion before members is of the same level, although he has a lot of respect for most Independent members of the Council at Fenland. He made the point that the three independent members have either been a member of the Planning Committee or a substitute member in the last year and one of the new Planning Committee members had passed comment to him and stated that before he had been elected as a councillor, he did not appreciate the amount of work which goes into a Planning meeting, including reading the agenda and associated reports, numerous site visits all over the Fenland area and then the committee meeting which can last for many hours. Councillor Connor stated that the councillor also made the point with regards to how open and transparent the Planning system was in Fenland in both the process and determination of the applications and made the point that there is a process in which a councillor can call in an application if the site falls within their ward or the adjoining ward and there does need to be a material planning reason in order for this to happen. He made the point that as he as Chairman of the Planning Committee reviews these applications and if they meet the relevant criteria, he will ensure the application is determined by the committee rather than delegate it to officers, stating that he has received three call in requests over the last five years from members and all of those applications have been determined by the Planning Committee. Councillor Connor made the point that all applications recommended for refusal by officers are reviewed by him and if he feels that members of the Planning Committee would find the application interesting then he consults with the Head of Planning to bring the application forward and also highlighted that if six letters of support or objection are received then the application will be determined before the Planning Committee which is another tool which demonstrates the openness and transparency of the planning process. He made the point that one of the many concerns highlighted by Councillor Summers appears to be the number of planning determinations which go against the officer’s recommendation, and he expressed the view that it could be because that the current adopted Local Plan is old. Councillor Connor made the point that planning is subjective and what may be acceptable to one member may not be to another and also to the general public. He expressed the view that for those reasons he will not support the motion and there are enough factors in place to give members the reassurance that the right process has been adhered to and hopefully the right planning decisions have been made. Councillor Connor added that he notes that Councillor Summers has not registered any interest with regards to sitting on the Planning Committee or shown any interest in Planning before this motion has been submitted.

·         Councillor Hoy stated that she is speaking from experience as a local member who has engaged with the planning process and, in her opinion, previous planning committees may have appeared to be less democratic than the current committee are and the current Planning Committee are very professional, have a good understanding with regards to all aspects of planning applications and they determine each application on its own merits which is as it should be. She stated that she has been approached on a number of occasions by residents who have concerns with regards to various planning applications and she has resolved to either advise them to use one of the mechanisms which are already in place, which include contacting the Town or Parish Council or encouraging those residents who have concerns to submit letters of support or objections. Councillor Hoy added that members can discuss their views with the Chairman of Planning or officers in the Planning Team to seek their advice and also have the option of speaking at a Planning Committee and, from her experience, members of the committee do listen to the views and opinions when presented at the committee. She made the point that she is actually quite surprised as to how many members have actually taken the time to read the Local Plan in detail to gain an understanding with regards to the decision-making process. Councillor Hoy made the point that the mechanisms are there to be used but you need to take the time to use them.

·         Councillor Hay stated that she sat on the committee for a number of years and, in her opinion, the system that is in place is robust and, as Councillor Connor has stated, if he is not content with the officer’s recommendation he can request that the application is determined before the committee. She added that as a local member she has called applications into the committee previously when she has not been happy with the recommendation and there are enough checks and balances to make sure the right decisions are made. Councillor Hay expressed the view that there are going to be instances where people are not going to be happy with decisions that are made and she added that by going further and opening things up to the Planning Inspectorate, the Council could end up facing costs which has happened previously. She stated that the last thing that the residents of Fenland will want is to take something to the Planning Inspectorate when there is no possibility of the Council winning and she will not support the motion.

·         Councillor Taylor stated that it is well known fact that he became a Councillor in order to help people and also due to the fact that he has issues with planning and drainage, but if anybody has a planning issue then there is a channel for research and correct investigation in order to find answers and work with other people. He expressed the view that this is a channel which would not achieve anything and for that reason he will not support the motion.

·         Councillor Tierney thanked Councillor Summers for bringing the motion forward as, in his opinion, it is a thoughtful motion and brings forward an interesting idea which is worth investigating and considering. He added that, in situations such as this, it is looking to find a balance which suits the public so that they feel that they have a fair opportunity without adding too much bureaucracy so that it is unwieldy, difficult, expensive or impossible. Councillor Tierney stated that whilst it is a good idea he does not believe that Councillor Summers has made a strong enough case, and if the Council had a Planning Committee who were constantly doing everything incorrectly, which he does not feel is the case at this current time. He expressed the opinion that the current Planning Committee is the best that he has ever seen and their decision-making process is very robust and whilst the committee do not always agree with the officer’s recommendation, he does not think that is a bad thing. Councillor Tierney stated that the committee is in place so that members can include their local input, whilst officers have provided their professional and legal judgement and the two put together enables a decision to be taken even if that is different to what the officers have recommended. He added that the system is built in that way and he does not see why an additional layer of bureaucracy would want to be included which would result in the replication of a Planning Committee at a higher level, however, possibly necessitating in a different appeal committee being formed to be the decision maker, which would not have enough benefit to make the cost, time and effort worth it. Councillor Tierney expressed the view that if the current Planning Committee were making mistakes then Councillor Summers may have a case to put forward, however, in his opinion, they are not and, therefore, he will not be supporting the motion.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that he was the previous Chairman of the Planning Committee and, in his view, the committee are the fairest that he has ever seen when they are determining applications and to add another layer of determination is an unbelievably bad idea. He stated that he trusts the committee because they have received training and whilst the committee might not always agree with the officer’s recommendations that is how it should be. Councillor Miscandlon made the point that to add an additional layer of scrutiny is wrong and he will not support the motion.

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has been an elected member for 25 years and has received repeated training on the subject of planning, explaining that before a councillor can sit on the Planning Committee there is a requirement to undertake training as many applications can be controversial. She made the point that if the motion was approved then every single member of the Council would need to receive training which would mean a significant cost to the Council and it would slow down the planning process which in turn would mean that the Planning department would not reach their targets which in turn would mean that the Government would intervene. Councillor Mrs French explained that she has also held the position of Chairman of the Planning Committee and those members who form part of the committee have to spend many hours reading very lengthy reports and undertaking visits to site, making the point that if the motion were approved it would mean that every member would need to visit each site. She added that whilst she feels that the sentiment of the motion is right, she cannot support it in its current form.

·         Councillor Gowler explained that he is the Vice Chairman of Chatteris Town Council’s Planning Committee and, therefore, he takes a great interest in planning applications and often watches the Council’s planning meetings. He made the point that he does not always agree with the decisions made by the Council’s Planning Committee, however, the officers and members who sit on the committee are all extremely professional. Councillor Gowler stated that as part of the planning training that he has received he was advised that if there is a situation where the committee agree with every officer recommendation or alternatively every decision is overturned then there is obviously a cause for concern. He added that the committee is there to deal with many contentious applications and, in his view, they carry out their role exceptionally. Councillor Gowler expressed the view that the planning process needs finality to it and the suggestions within the motion will only mean additional delays to the planning process which is already a lengthy process. He made the point that there is the option for a judicial review to be undertaken once an application is determined, however, recognised that it is a costly and lengthy process.

·         Councillor Booth expressed the opinion that some members do not appear to have fully understood what the motion is trying to achieve and members have made statements regarding the current checks and balances that are in place for when an application is determined at committee, however, the motion is focussing on what happens after the committee meeting. He made the point that there are other local authorities who have a similar process to that which has been highlighted in the motion and referred members to an application which caused much controversy, making the point that the process outlined in the motion could deal with such an application should the need ever arise again. Councillor Booth referred to the point made by Councillor Mrs French with regards to all members requiring training if the motion were adopted and he explained that there would only be the requirement to have a small sub-committee to deal with the applications. He added that the whole point about the motion is to introduce a mechanism which is agreeable rather than the assumptions that members are highlighting with regards to a process before it is actually being looked at, which he finds concerning. Councillor Booth stated that he feels that the motion does have some merit to be explored further and if officers put forward a proposal and members do not agree then it will not be carried forward, however, officers need to be given the opportunity to investigate the possibilities further including benchmarking other authorities who already operate such a scheme and then report back to full Council.

·         Councillor Roy stated that he agrees with the points made by Councillor Booth in order to give the Council the opportunity to undertake similar systems that other local authorities do already and would mean the implementation of a mechanism in the future to keep up with the changing times. He stated that he appreciates that the planning process is very lengthy.

Councillor Summers summed up by thanking Councillor Tierney for his open mindfulness and expressed the view that he was not intending to offend those members who currently hold a position on the Planning Committee as that was not his intention and he appreciates the hard work and good job that those members undertake. He added that members have referred to openness and transparency during the debate and he agrees with them, but the point of the motion was to explore the options and as Councillor Booth indicated there are other authorities who have adopted this type of system. Councillor Summers made the point that the professionalism of officers and members of the committee is not in question, and he is not making any suggestion that the Planning Inspectorate should be involved as well as any associated costs unless that would be necessary to achieve any constitutional changes. He expressed the view that he has been contacted by residents on a number of occasions with regards to planning decisions which have been made, especially if the Parish Council have made objection to the application and it has been approved. He made the point that it does not sit well when he has to advise residents that the decision is final especially when the residents are particularly passionate about a site. Councillor Summers added that he is aware that members can speak at committee meetings and part of the motion was to explore the associated constraints which may be present.

Members did not approve the motion.

(Councillors Connor, Mrs French, Hicks, Imafidon and Marks declared that they sit on the Planning Committee, however, they would remain impartial with their decision making in considering this motion)