Issue - meetings

(a)       That paragraph 5.6 be amended to include reference to an audit trail being kept as to why the decision was taken for Members to attend the meetings of that company or its representatives in the first place; and

(b)       That paragraph 1.3 be amended to reflect the relevant section from the Planning Code of Conduct, to read “where a Member had been contacted on more than 4 occasions”.

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report which was to undertake a periodic review of the protocol for Members in their dealings with contractors / developers and other third parties to identify any necessary alterations.  This was part of a rolling programme of a review of protocols.

                        This protocol referred to other documents such as the Members’ Code of Conduct and the Planning Code of Conduct, both of which had been reviewed since this protocol was introduced.  Nevertheless the reference in the protocol to those other documents remained accurate and up-to-date with one exception.  The Planning Code of Conduct no longer referred to the Unitary Development Plan but to the Development Plan so as to cover the move to Local Development Plans.  The word ‘Unitary’ should therefore be deleted from Clause 4.1 of the protocol.

                        Mr Dewey felt there was a discrepancy between the wording in paragraph 5.5 and 5.6 of the protocol.  He suggested that paragraph 5.6 of the protocol be amended to include reference to an audit trail being kept as to why a decision was taken for Members to attend the meetings of that company or its representatives in the first place, which was agreed by the Committee.

                        In response to a comment from Councillor McGuill, the Monitoring Officer explained that when a Member declared that they had been contacted on more than 3 occasions by the same person, this was not the Member declaring an interest but was for information and in the interests of transparency.

                        In reading paragraph 1.3 of the protocol, the Monitoring Officer advised that an amendment was required to reflect the relevant section from the Planning Code of Conduct, to read “where a Member has been contacted on more than 4 occasions” and not 3 occasions.

RESOLVED:

(a)       That paragraph 5.6 be amended to include reference to an audit trail being kept as to why the decision was taken for Members to attend the meetings of that company or its representatives in the first place; and

(b)       That paragraph 1.3 be amended to reflect the relevant section from the Planning Code of Conduct, to read “where a Member had been contacted on more than 4 occasions”.