skip to main content

Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Councillor Dafydd Meurig

 

Consider the report of The Head of Environment

 

Minutes:

Submitted - a report by the Head of the Environment Department about the new (draft) planning delegation scheme that contained the amendments that had been approved by the Scrutiny Committee. Members were reminded that Members of the Scrutiny Committee had conducted a planning scrutiny investigation, and that the delegation scheme was one of the fields that was scrutinised. One of the recommendations of that scrutiny investigation was amending the thresholds of the delegation plan. Reference was made to the proposed delegation plan that was included with the report, and the evident and extensive benefits that would be delivered by implementing the changes.

 

It was emphasised that one of those benefits was that fewer applications would be referred to the Planning Committee. Based on the high percentage of applications that were currently referred, it was noted that the changes would ensure that the Committee focused on dealing solely with the matters that were of material interest. This would ensure that the best use was made of the time and expertise of the Committee members and relevant officers.

 

The right of the Local Member, or two other members, to call an application to committee under specific circumstances, was acknowledged and supported; this would continue as per the current situation, and was considered to be acceptable.

 

The Committee was requested to confirm and support the draft proposed delegation scheme prior to its submission to the Full Council on the recommendation of the Monitoring Officer as it was a constitutional matter.

 

During the ensuing discussion, the following points were highlighted by individual Members:

·         The number of applications that went before the Planning Committee were not excessive. The Planning Committee's purpose was to make decisions.

·         Happy with the current system – need to adhere to a democratic process

·         Accept that the changes would save resources and time, but would this mean that applications not referred to committee would receive less attention?

·         Need to consider the nature of the objections rather than the numbers

·         Consideration should be given to presenting an application to a 'would be of interest' committee - that a certain amount of correspondence would equate to 'creating an interest' even if there was only one reason for refusal / approval.

·         Accept that the Local Member had the right to refer an application to Committee - this was beneficial and ensured that the local views were heard. However this could place the Local Member in a vulnerable position and open to allegations about their views.

·         In order to consider the situation to date, a request was made for information from the Senior Planning Manager on the number of applications referred to the Planning Committee, how many of those applications went to an appeal, and how many of those appeals were successful.

 

In response to the observations, the Senior Solicitor noted that striking a balance was essential, and that the changes did not question how the Planning Committee made decisions. It was also noted that the Members had a key role in referring the applications onwards in order to ensure the local aspect. The purpose of these changes was to ensure that the applications discussed in the committee were of substance.

 

In response to the observations, the Senior Planning Manager noted that all the matters had been considered in detail by the members of the investigation, and that the proposed changes had already been approved by the Scrutiny Committee. In response to concerns about correspondence it was noted that there was no rationale for three or more items of correspondence - only planning matters were to be addressed. He emphasised that each item of correspondence would be given attention, and that there was an opportunity here to strengthen the role of the local member.

 

In response to an observation regarding how the changes would reduce risk, it was reported that the specific statutory period of eight weeks to submit an application was challenging in relation to reporting and scheduling the submission of the application to committee at the appropriate time. If the service was unable to act within the eight weeks, the Council would be open to an appeal resulting in the repayment of the applicant's fee and payment of costs. It was noted that these appeals were challenging due to work pressures, and were therefore considered as a possible risk

 

In response to a question regarding presenting information about the changes to Planning Committee Members, it was noted that an information sharing session had been held in December 2017.

 

The Cabinet Member accepted that the workload of the Planning Committee was heavy, and that it should be ensured that the applications that required attention were given a fair hearing. He added that he was acting upon the recommendations from the investigation.

 

Resolved to accept the report, although the decision was not unanimous.

 

Supporting documents: