Agenda item - Scheme of Delegations

Agenda item

Scheme of Delegations

Minutes:

The leader drew Members attention to Paragraph 3.7 which highlighted that a full review of the Delegations was currently being undertaken and that at the most recent meeting of the Constitution Review Working Group it had been agreed that a further report would be brought before the Council’s September meeting for consideration.  The report before Members therefore merely included changes to legislation and officer titles.  It was also noted that on page 37 there appears to be a number of question marks in respect of delegations and it was confirmed that these should be removed.  The Leader asked Members to advise officers if there were any particular areas which required further clarification.

 

The report was proposed by Councillor G. Denaro and seconded by Councillor K. May.

 

Councillor P. McDonald commented that this was the only opportunity Members had to give input into the delegations and drew Members attention to page 74, Planning Application delegations and in particular 1(a) applications for dwelling houses where the number of houses to be provided is 10 or more.  Councillor McDonald was of the view that this should be reduced to just one property and that all applications should be brought before the Planning Committee and requested an amendment to the this effect.  The amendment was seconded by Councillor M. Thompson.

 

Councillor McDonald highlighted the following areas in support of his amendment:

 

·         To stop Councillors trying to influence others, particularly in respect of applications outside of their own Ward.

·         Take away the need for the call-in process in respect of applications.

·         To protect Officers, as decision in respect of planning applications, particularly in the current climate could be contentious.  He believed that it was unfair to put Officers in the position where they could be open to influence from developers.

·          He did not believe that by this change it would have a significant impact on the work of the Planning Committee.

 

Following the proposed amendment, the Leader commented that this debate had also been had in the Constitution Review Working Group and believed that this figure was set by Central Government.  Councillor Mallett advised that this was in fact the number of houses which triggered affordable housing provision and not those which needed to be considered by the Planning Committee, as this was a figure set by this Council.

 

Councillor C. B. Taylor, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Strategic Housing, commented that he also had sympathy in respect of the call-in process, however this was part of the democratic process and that he had total confidence in the officers making a decision on developments of up to 10 houses.

 

During the following debate of the amendment a number of areas were discussed in more detail, including:

 

·         “Back garden” developments, which often fell under the 10 houses ruling and which had the potential to be contentious.

·         Members were provided with a list of all applications on a weekly basis and if they had any concerns or concerns were raised with them by residents then there was the opportunity to call-in a particular application.

·         It was discussed that residents may not be aware of the call-in process and whether any actions could be taken to promote this.

·         Members “lobbying” other Ward Members in respect of an application that was outside of their own area.

·         The removal of the call-in process and all applications going to the Planning Committee in order to make the process more open and transparent.

 

In accordance with the Council Procedure Rule 18.3 a recorded vote was taken and voting was as follows:

 

For the amendment Councillors Bloore, Buxton, Colella, Hotham, Jenkins, Mallett, P. McDonald, C. McDonald, Shannon, Thompson, Turner and Van der Plank (12).

 

Against the amendment Councillors Allen-Jones, Cooper, Deeming, Denaro, Dent, Glass, Laight, May, Sherrey, Spencer, M. Webb, S. Webb, Whittaker and Jones (14).

 

Abstentions Councillor S. Peters (1).

 

The Chairman declared the amendment to be lost.

 

A brief discussion followed in respect of the inclusion of Ward Councillors within a number of areas to ensure that they were involved in the decision making process, as it was likely that they would have more local knowledge within their Ward and therefore input from them would be useful.  Members were reminded that Ward Members had been involved successfully in, for example in the New Homes Bonus Community Grant Scheme and it was envisaged that the Ward Member role could be further enhanced in other areas.  The Leader confirmed that this would be considered as part of the overall review carried out by the Constitution Review Working Group.

 

RESOLVED that the current version of the Officer Scheme of Delegations be agreed as set out at Appendix 1 to the report.

Supporting documents: