Issue - meetings

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager introduced the report and noted that the Planning Referral Process related to applications that would likely have significant cost implications. It was introduced in 2006 in response to an application that cost the Council £500k at appeal and had been used three times since then, once in its current form.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager highlighted the review of the Planning Referral Process that occurred in 2017, and the risks associated with planning decisions with significant cost implications. The feedback provided from the use of the process on 13 July 2020 was set out in the report.

The available options shown within the report were outlined, with attention drawn to Options One and Five which were not recommended. The reasons were that the first option recommended no changes be made and that option five would remove the deferrals process which allows for further consideration of an application and advice from Counsel when necessary. No active recommendation on options two, three or four was made with the Committee asked to decide which option it would prefer. 

Councillor Munford addressed the Committee as a Visiting Member, with specific reference made to the deferral and referral processes and the training undertaken by Policy and Resources Committee Members in sitting as the Planning Referrals Body.

During the debate, the options and research were discussed. In response to questions, the Democratic and Electoral Services Manager confirmed that the threshold for a significant cost based on the definitions shown within the Council’s Constitution is £30k. The Principal Lawyer confirmed that significant costs refer to the amount of legal costs the Council would be likely to lose at appeal or judicial review. The Committee requested that this be reviewed as there was a feeling the definition of significant in this context was too low.

The Democratic and Electoral Services Manager offered to conduct a consultation process with Members and Officers for the proposed amendments to the Constitution, as outlined within Option 2 of the report, that would be presented to Full Council.

RESOLVED: That

1.  Policy and Resources Committee remain as the Planning Referral Body, with its Members also consulted on planning training together with Planning Committee Members, be agreed;

2.  The Power of Planning Officers in Rule 31.3(d) to refer to a matter to Policy and Resources Committee acting as the Planning Referral Body be removed and replaced by a Member-led power, being that a matter where officers advise against significant cost implications may be so referred either upon:

a.  An agreement between the Planning Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman; OR

b.  A resolution of the Planning Committee; be agreed; and

3.  The Democratic and Electoral Services manager be given delegated authority to propose written amendments to the Constitution to provide definitions of significant costs, the status of Planning Committee ‘decisions’ at each stage, the nature of the considerations of the Planning Referral Body and determining an application, be agreed.