Agenda item

To consider the attached report of the Monitoring Officer.

That subject to the above additions and amendments the proposed

alterations to the Flintshire Planning Code of Practice be submitted to the

Planning Strategy Group for consideration.

The Democracy and Governance Manager introduced a report on the review of the Flintshire Planning Code of Practice.  He provided background information and referred to the main proposed alterations to the planning code which were detailed in the report.  He explained that the Planning Code with proposed alterations shown as tracked changes and comments showing the reason for the alterations, was appended to the report for comment by the Committee prior to consideration by the Planning Strategy Group.  

The Democracy and Governance Manager referred to the Model Planning Code which had recently been received from Peter Keith Lucas. 

Members reviewed the Flintshire Planning Code of Practice and made the following additions and changes to the proposed alterations: 

Section 2 - Role of Members

Following consideration of the Model Planning Code received from Peter Lucas it was agreed that the following new paragraph (2.3.4) be added to Section 2: 

Members should not decide or discuss how to vote on any application at any sort of political group meeting, or lobby any other Member to do so.  Political group meetings should never dictate how Members should vote on a planning issue.  

Section 3 - Training: 

Councillor Arnold Woolley expressed concerns around the  proposal in paragraph 3.4 to grant an exception, where good reason, to the requirement in paragraph 3.3 that members of the Planning and Development Control Committee (including substitute members)  attend 75% of the planning training topics.    It was also suggested that when a Member fell below the 75% limit they should be given a timeframe of  6 months to return to the 75% level.  The Democracy and Governance Manager responded to the concern raised around relaxing the 75% requirement and explained the rationale for the proposed change.  He commented that the 75% limit was an internal threshold and was one of the few instances where a minimum requirement was set.

During discussion members raised concerns around the issue of public perception and it was suggested that any exceptions to the training requirement would be viewed better if granted by the Standards Committee, which comprised co-opted members as well as elected Members, rather than the Planning Strategy Group. 

It was proposed that the wording in paragraph 3.4 be amended as follows:  “Attendance at planning training will be monitored and reported to the Planning Strategy Group.  The Standards Committee may grant an exception to the requirements of paragraph 3.3 for 6 months where there is good reason for a Member temporarily failing to meet this requirement”.  When put to the vote the proposal was carried.

Section 5 – Lobbying

The Committee agreed that the following sentence be added to the end of paragraph 5.1:  Members must pass on any lobbying correspondence they receive to the Development Manager at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Robert Dewey sought clarification of the statement in paragraph 5.3 that “Members should declare significant contact with applicants and objectors” and queried the definition of significance as being on “more than  three occasions by the applicant or the same objector”.  Mr. Dewey read out a statement with suggested alternative wording for consideration. 

The Democracy and Governance Manager explained the rationale for paragraph 5.3 and emphasised the need for transparency in a situation where an applicant or objector was particularly vigorous in lobbying the Member.  The Chief Officer confirmed that more than three occasions provided clarity.

 Councillor Arnold Woolley proposed that the reference to more than three occasions remained in paragraph 5.3 for clarity and that the declaration was made at the committee meeting.  The Chief Officer suggested that this be re-badged on the committee agenda as declarations of interest and lobbying. 

It was agreed that paragraph 5.3 be amended as follows:  Members should declare at the appropriate part of the committee meeting significant contact with applicants and objectors.  Significant contact is where a Member has been contacted on more than 3 occasions by the applicant or the same objector (either orally or in writing). 

Section 10 - Procedure at Planning and Development Control Committee

In relation to paragraph 10.5 Mrs. Phillipa Earlam referred to the comment asking whether the protocol should be attached as an appendix and it was agreed that the protocol on public speaking to the code should be attached.

Section 11 – Decisions Contrary to Officer Recommendation

During discussion it was agreed that paragraph 11.5 be amended as follows to ensure that  members of the public attending the committee meeting are informed that the decision certificate may not be issued if it amounts to a significant departure from planning policy.  “A legal advisor present at the committee meeting may subsequently prevent a decision  notice being issued until a report by the Chief Officer (Governance), has been considered at the subsequent committee meeting.  The reason for this report may be concerns of a legal nature or that at the committee meeting the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment)  indicated the proposed decision represents a significant departure from the planning policy and the legal officer subsequently agreed”.  

RESOLVED:

That subject to the above additions and amendments the proposed

alterations to the Flintshire Planning Code of Practice be submitted to the

Planning Strategy Group for consideration.