Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director of Governance and Monitoring Officer

The report to Council set out the proposed changes to the Council’s Constitution relating to speaking at Planning Committee.

Council was informed that Standards Committee had assessed the arrangements for public participation at Planning Committee at its meeting on 27 July 2023. The Committee was advised that reducing the number of those who could register to speak on Applications would not hinder Members of the Planning Committee in determining on Applications as they would still be able to receive and take into account written representations and comments from those who supported and objected to Applications.

Members heard that the Standards Committee had agreed to propose a revised text of Section 16.1 of the Members (Councillors) Planning Rules. Included in this revised text was to allow the following to speak at Planning Committee: Local Ward Members, the Member of Parliament, the Agent and Applicant, three additional speakers against an Application and three additional speakers in favour of an Application.

The Standards Committee had also proposed that the Chair of the Planning Committee would be able to consider additional requests to speak on a case-by-case basis.

Council considered the report and the proposed changes. Councillor D Hancock argued that the issue wasn’t with the number of speakers but with the repetition of the same arguments. He suggested that Standards Committee should look into how the meetings were Chaired and ensure that speakers were able to present a united and cohesive approach.

Councillor C Cupit thanked Standards Committee for looking into the matter. She argued that it was important for local residents to be able to speak at Planning Committee and that this should remain as open and accessible as possible. She argued that registering speakers on a “first come first served” basis would be unfair and would deter residents from registering to speak.

Councillor M Foster contended that the number of speakers at Planning Committee does not have an adverse effect on the length of the meeting as a whole. He felt that any repetition of arguments or points should be addressed by the Chair.

Councillor A Dale raised concerns over allowing ward Members to speak on Applications within their ward as a single Member ward would not be allocated as many speakers as a three-Member ward. He also suggested that the approach placed pressure on the Chair to decide if an application was contentious enough to allow more speakers.

Councillor R Shipman agreed with the points that had been previously raised and suggested that it should be the role of the Chair of Planning and not the Constitution of the Council to manage speaking during the meetings.

Councillor K Gillott spoke in favour of the recommendations contained in the report. He argued that the proposals addressed many of the concerns that had previously been raised by Members and that as a quasi-judicial Committee, it was important for Planning Committee to have a set of rules to guide them and ensure fairness. He reiterated that many other local authorities have rules over the number of residents allowed to speak at their Planning Committees and that the purpose of speaking at Committee is not to bring up new points or information but to further illustrate arguments already raised by written representation.

Councillors K Gillott and N Barker moved and seconded a motion to approve the recommendations as contained in the report.

Councillors J Barry and S Fawcett felt that a review should take place within 12 months to assess how well the new measures were working in practice.

Councillor R Shipman proposed an amendment to the motion to amend section 2.e. in the recommendations so that a much larger number of speakers should be able to register to speak either for or against an application on a first come first served basis. Councillor D Hancock seconded the amendment.

Councillor C Renwick argued that limits on speakers would constrain large applications as it would not always be possible for only three speakers to convey all of the relative arguments to an application. She also argued that placing a limit on the number of speakers did not necessarily mean that they would not repeat the same arguments.

Councillor C Cupit argued in support of the amendment. She raised concerns over the possibility of a future review finding that limiting the number of speakers had not been successful and what this would mean for any contentious applications that had been debated while the limit was in place.

Councillor F Adlington-Stringer argued that it was important to allow local residents to speak at Planning Committee and that it would be sensible to have a review on the policy within a year.

Councillor M Foster argued that placing a limit on the number of speakers was unnecessary and Housing Developers could fill the limited slots with their own representatives to limit the feedback of local residents.

Councillor D Hancock argued that three was too low a limitation to place on the number of speakers and that the key issue of preventing speakers from repeating the same points was down to how the meeting was managed.

Councillor R Shipman used his right of reply to argue that it was important not to restrict the number of speakers and that Developers would use the limits to their advantage to unfairly gain the system.

The amendment was put to the vote and was defeated.

Councillor C Renwick proposed an amendment to the motion to amend section 2.e. in the recommendations so that 20 other speakers should be able to register to speak either for or against an application on a first come first served basis. Councillor F Adlington-Stringer seconded the amendment.

Councillor N Baker spoke in favour of the amendment and argued that it would be a more reasonable number.

Councillor J Barry spoke against the amendment. She argued that residents were able to write in about applications and that they can appeal to their Parish or District Councillor to speak on their behalf.

Councillor C Renwick used her right of reply to argue that this was a pragmatic approach as it was very rare the Council had large scale applications on which lots of residents wished to speak. She urged any Members that value the input of local residents to support the amendment.

The amendment was put to the vote and was defeated.

Councillor K Gillott accepted a suggested amendment to the motion to alter section 2.e. so that it read that “three other speakers in support of the Application and three other speakers objecting to the Application.

Councillor K Gillott that the Planning Committee needed clear rules in order to work effectively. He informed Members that the Council’s Constitution was reviewed on a yearly basis and that the proposed speaking arrangements could be reviewed as a part of this review.

Councillors A Dale, C Cupit and S Clough requested that a recorded vote be taken on the motion.

The motion was put to the vote and approved.

For: 26

Councillors F Adlington-Stringer, N Barker, J Barry, G Baxter, R Beech, J Birkin, D Cheetham, K Clegg, A Cooper, S Cornwell, M Durrant, S Fawcett, C Fletcher, C Gare, K Gillott, D Higgon, C Lacey, G Morley, N Morley, F Petersen, K Rouse, D Skinner, Caroline Smith, Christine Smith, M Smith, and H Wetherall

Against: 22

Councillors P Antcliff, N Baker, S Clough, C Cupit, A Dale, L Deighton, P Elliott, M Emmens, M Foster, D Hancock, P Jones, W Jones, H Liggett, S Reed, C Renwick, M Roe, R Shipman, R Spooner, M E Thacker MBE, R Welton, P Windley

Abstentions: 0

The motion was approved.

RESOLVED – That:

·       Council endorsed the recommendations of Standards Committee on the arrangements for speaking at Planning Committee meetings.

·       Council confirmed a revised Section 16.1 of the Members (Councillors) Planning Rules, incorporating the following clarifications and amendments as set out in Section 3.6 of the report:

o   That Local Ward Members and the Elected Member who has referred an application to Planning Committee should be able to register to speak at Committee either for or against an application.

o   That a Parish or Town Council which has made a representation on an application should be able to register to speak at Committee either for or against an application.

o   That a Member of Parliament for the all or part of the North East Derbyshire District should be able to register to speak either for or against an application.

o   That the Applicant and the Agent for an application should be able to register to speak on their application.

o   That three others speakers for and three other speakers against an application should be able to register to speak on a first come first served basis.