Agenda item

The purpose of this report is to consider revisions to the Planning scheme of delegation within the Council's Constitution.

Members considered the Constitutional Amendments (Amendment to Planning Scheme of Delegation) Report presented by Councillor Mrs Laws. 

Councillor Sutton said he had a problem with the paper because the key issues at item 2 had used the term ‘Members’ as a sweeping statement. He said this should have read ‘some Members’ as he had not been asked and it did not reflect his thoughts. He also said he had a slight problem with the possibility of overloading the Planning Committee with applications that perhaps should not be there but could end up there.  Therefore, whilst he will support the paper he would like to ask both the Leader and Portfolio Holder that we review this after six months. Already we are seeing uplift in applications through the extended time, which he had not agreed with. Every four weeks would be more suitable in his opinion.

Councillor Booth was going to suggest the same as Councillor Sutton, that this be reviewed in six months’ time to see how it works in practice. However, his main concern is the member call-in process which was only changed a few years ago. His understanding at that time is that it would be a consultation between the heads of Planning and Legal and the Planning Chairman. This is a slight change but seems to put a lot of power on the head of Planning and feels that the other changes put more power onto members’ hands so we seem to be going in two different directions about how planning matters are dealt with. Therefore he would like a review in six months’ time.

Councillor Boden said he had great doubts that there would be the number of occasions when these provisions would end up being used. That is why he believes Councillor Sutton’s concern about the increasing workload on the Planning Committee is not based on reality. Nevertheless as we have a local plan that is out of date it will be the case on occasion that planning officers will have little option but to recommend refusal for some things that we really need to see approved. If in six months’ time, Councillor Sutton or Councillor Booth wish to seek a revision then that is fine but he does not think we will be in that position then.

Councillor Hoy said she fully supported the report. 

Councillor Mrs Laws said we have to be mindful that our local plan is not fit for purpose.  Unfortunately however, it is what planning officers have to go by.  These amendments she believes will be helpful and what we are all trying to achieve is suitable and sustainable development.  Like Councillor Boden, she will be happy to receive a revision request in six months and is hoping that it will not be necessary. We also have to bear in mind we have had a sudden surge because many agents have been working from home and they found applications that have stalled or needed revitalising and she hopes this will address any misgivings that Councillor Sutton and Councillor Booth have.

Council AGREED to revise the Planning scheme of delegation within the Council's Constitution as set out at Appendix A of the report.