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:
- Planning Delegation Plan, item 7. PDF 480 KB
- APPENDIX 1, item 7. PDF 263 KB
- APPENDIX 2, item 7. PDF 297 KB