Agenda item - Dispensations

To consider the enclosed application for dispensation and any other requests that are received before the meeting.

(a) That Councillor John Lamb be granted dispensation under paragraphs (d) and (f) of the Standards Committee (Grant of Dispensations) (Wales) Regulations 2001 to speak on sites, and not his own, which have been submitted for inclusion in the LDP. To leave the room once spoken and before the vote takes place, on the basis that he had not previously spoken against any of those sites;

(b) That Councillor Hilary Lamb be granted dispensation under paragraphs (d) and (f) of the Standards Committee (Grant of Dispensations) (Wales) Regulations 2001 to speak on sites, and not her own, which have been submitted for inclusion in the LDP. To leave the room once spoken and before the vote takes place, on the basis that she had not previously spoken against any of those sites; and

(c) That Councillor Peter York be granted dispensation under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of the Standards Committee (Grant of Dispensations) (Wales) Regulations 2001 for a period of 12 months (ending 8 February 2016) to speak and vote on planning application number 052922 relating to two wind turbines and in the Monitoring Officer’s view, on any other similar applications.

Application for dispensations from Councillors John and Hilary Lamb to speak only about other sites which have been submitted for inclusion in the LDP

The Chief Officer (Governance) reported on requests for dispensations received following despatch of the agenda from Councillors John and Hilary Lamb of Northop Hall Community Council. Their requests were to speak only about sites, other than their own, which had been submitted for inclusion in the new Local Development Plan (LDP).

Mr Lamb addressed the Committee on behalf of himself and his wife and explained that they had both served on Northop Hall Community Council for 25 years. They owned a small field in Northop Hall which their son had applied for it to be included in the LDP for small scale housing development. They had prejudicial interests in relation to consideration of their site by the Community Council and would leave the room whilst their site was being discussed.

However, they also believed that it could be perceived that they had prejudicial interests in all of the candidate sites because should they vote against any of the other sites for inclusion in the LDP, it could be the view that they were doing so to favour their own site by excluding others. They therefore did not wish to vote on any sites in the LDP but they did feel that it would not serve the interests of the public if they were excluded from participating in the debate about other sites given their vast experience gained during the last 25 years.

Of the 11 Northop Hall Community Councillors, five had less than two years’ experience, with no experience of the LDP process. Included in that number was the Chairman who had 18 months experience as a Councillor and two Councillors having less than six months experience. For the reasons stated, they believed that it would be in the public interest to allow them to participate in the LDP debate in relation to the other candidate sites, not their own, without the right to vote.

The Chief Officer explained the LDP process which was where plans were developed by local planning authorities in order to provide the economic, social and environmental needs of the County and provided the opportunity for engagement with a variety of stakeholders early on in the process, such as Town and Community Councils.

The Chief Officer (Governance) asked if Northop Hall Community Council had the facility for public speaking at meetings and Mr Lamb explained that public speaking was allowed at the discretion of the Chair. Following the response, the Chief Officer clarified to the Committee that Mr and Mrs Lamb had no right to address the Community Council as members of the public as it was at the discretion of the Chair and if the Committee did not grant dispensation there was no avenue for them to share their knowledge.

He advised that it was inappropriate for them to speak on their own land which had been included in the LDP which had been acknowledged by Mr and Mrs Lamb in their application. However, they had vast experience in such matters, had resided in the area for a number of years and had been active members of the Town and Community Council.

Councillor Woolley asked how many sites were identified in the LDP for Northop Hall. Mr Lamb said he did not know the exact number but there were a considerable number.

Councillor McGuill asked if either Mr or Mrs Lamb had spoken against any of the sites identified in the LDP previously to which they both replied not that they were aware of.

At this point all members of the public withdrew from the room.

Councillor Woolley said he felt Mr and Mrs Lamb’s experience would add value to any debate on the LDP and commented on the meticulous applications for dispensation that they had both submitted, where they had set their own limitations in that they did not ask to speak on their own site.

Councillor McGuill felt that speaking on other sites in the LDP could not be seen as prejudicial as they had not spoken against any of those sites previously, and particularly as they were not seeking dispensation to vote.

Councillor Woolley suggested a conditional approval on the basis that permission to speak on other sites be granted if there was no record of past prejudice on any of the other sites involved. The Chief Officer advised that such a condition would be difficult to satisfy as it would involve the Clerk to the Community Council checking past records to establish if any comments had been made in the past and whether or not those comments had been prejudicial, all of which would be at the discretion of the Clerk. Mr and Mrs Lamb had been asked if they had spoken against any of the sites previously and they had answered to the best of their ability. Robert Dewey felt that even if they had commented on sites previously, such comments would no longer apply and he supported their application.

Councillor Woolley proposed that the applications for dispensation be granted for Mr and Mrs Lamb to speak on other sites, not their own, and for them to leave the room prior to the vote being taken on the basis that they had not previously made any prejudicial comments on such sites.

Mr and Mrs Lamb were invited to re-join the meeting and the Chairman advised them of the Committee’s decision to grant their requests for dispensation.

Application for dispensation from Councillor Peter York to speak and vote on Planning Application number 052922 on the installation of two Wind Turbines

Dr York addressed the Committee and explained that a similar application for a wind turbine had been submitted in 2012 during which time he was Mayor of Holywell Town Council. At that time he applied for a dispensation to speak on the item which had been granted by the Standards Committee.

The new application submitted for two wind turbines would, in his opinion, cause unrest and disquiet in the area. Although he was not a ward Councillor for the area where the application had been submitted, he did reside opposite where the proposed wind turbines would be situated. However, he stressed that he did not oppose them on their visual appearance and he was not biased about them but he did want to be able to express sensible comments to the Town Council.

The Chief Officer asked if the location of the two wind turbines was the same as the previous application to which Dr York replied it broadly was and was approximately two hundred yards from his home however he was unsure as to whether they would be visible from his property.

In response to a question from the Chief Officer, Dr York explained that, in addition to paragraphs (d) and (e), he had applied under paragraph (c) as he was one of only two Independent Members on the Town Council.

The Chief Officer advised that it was for members of the Standards Committee to determine whether or not they felt the public interest would be harmed if dispensation was granted.

At this point all members of the public withdrew from the room.

Robert Dewey said the application site appeared to more than two hundred yards away from Dr York’s property and he supported the request for dispensation to speak and vote on the application, The Chief Officer suggested that if granted, the dispensation could also read ‘and in the Monitoring Officer’s view, on any other similar application’, which was supported.

Dr York was invited to re-join the meeting and the Chairman advised him of the Committee’s decision to grant his request for dispensation.

RESOLVED:

(a) That Councillor John Lamb be granted dispensation under paragraphs (d) and (f) of the Standards Committee (Grant of Dispensations) (Wales) Regulations 2001 to speak on sites, and not his own, which have been submitted for inclusion in the LDP. To leave the room once spoken and before the vote takes place, on the basis that he had not previously spoken against any of those sites;

(b) That Councillor Hilary Lamb be granted dispensation under paragraphs (d) and (f) of the Standards Committee (Grant of Dispensations) (Wales) Regulations 2001 to speak on sites, and not her own, which have been submitted for inclusion in the LDP. To leave the room once spoken and before the vote takes place, on the basis that she had not previously spoken against any of those sites; and

(c) That Councillor Peter York be granted dispensation under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of the Standards Committee (Grant of Dispensations) (Wales) Regulations 2001 for a period of 12 months (ending 8 February 2016) to speak and vote on planning application number 052922 relating to two wind turbines and in the Monitoring Officer’s view, on any other similar applications.