Issue - meetings

Purpose: To update Council regarding the work undertaken by the Constitution Review Task Group (“CRTG”), and to propose the approval of the proposed Constitutional updates detailed in this report.

Council considered a report (Agenda Item 16) concerning the Planning Appendix Constitutional update.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Brooks and seconded by Councillor Denise Gaines:

“That Council:

A)    approves Part 6.8 Planning Appendix for adoption as set out in Appendix A to the report;

B)    approves Part 11 Scheme of Delegation be updated as set out in Appendix B to the report;

C)   delegates to the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chairman of the Constitution Review Task Group, the power to update Parts 6.8 and 11 of the Constitution to ensure that this reflects the new rules, and to make any minor additional corrections to the parts of the Constitution to ensure consistency in terminology and presentation; and

D)   approves that the changes to the Constitution detailed in this report, take effect from 1 June 2025.

Councillor Brooks introduced the report and highlighted that the Constitution Review Task Group (CRTG) had been working systematically through every part of the Constitution, and that this was the latest result of that work. Council noted that the Governance Committee had reviewed the report and recommended it be approved by Council. Councillor Brooks also indicated that the Group would be looking to make the Constitution more navigable in a future update.

Several Members expressed support for the reconsideration of a point in the Constitution that required Substitute Members to be from the same political groups. They noted that planning was not a political committee and so, in the event that a Member was unable to attend a meeting, they should be permitted to call on a substitute from any party. However, it was noted that substitution rules were determined by political proportionality, and so this may not likely be able to be amended.

Some Members also indicated that hearing the speech from the adjoining Ward Member before the actual Ward Member had spoken was not the most effective order of speaking, and that this should also be reviewed. Some Members also suggested that Executive Members sitting on Planning Committees where a Council proposal was to be considered should be reviewed. This was suggested in order to help create distance between the applicant and determiner. Members noted that the CRTG would discuss these suggestions when the Group re-examined this section of the Constitution.

Overall, as Council were satisfied with the report, they agreed to approve the recommendations.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.

Purpose: To update the Committee on the work undertaken by the Constitution Review Task Group and to propose the approval of the proposed Constitutional updates detailed within the report.

(Report to follow)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 9) concerning Constitutional changes to the Planning Appendix.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer and Service Lead for Legal and Democratic Services introduced the report and highlighted that it followed from the routine programme of the Constitution Review Task Group. She noted that the planning appendix would be absorbing some of the planning related sections from the codes and protocols section which had been removed in the last update to the Constitution. In addition, the Planning Appendix had been updated to ensure that decisions taken would be compliant with updates to the legal framework. It was also noted that the Planning Advisory Group had reviewed and contributed to the proposed amendments.

Members highlighted a number of typographical errors in the report, such as the need to capitalise Development Plan and to add ‘whichever’ before ‘level the application is being considered’ in point 14.3 on page 17.

In addition, on points 14.1 and 14.2 on page 16 of the Supplement Pack, the Committee discussed the most appropriate way of ensuring that Members were not predetermined in situations where they had heard the application in a previous Committee meeting – such as when an application was taken to both an Area Planning Committee and the District Planning Committee. The Committee agreed to propose that both points 14.1 and 14.2 end after, ‘may well change their mind.’

Some Members questioned the need for specific details relating to conduct in Planning Committees, and that it was excessive and indicated that there was a lack of trust in Members.

In response to a question on why other attendees on site visits were not permitted to express opinions regarding the merits of the application, the Deputy Monitoring Officer and Service Lead for Legal and Democratic Services highlighted that site visits should be conducted in the same way that a committee would be conducted, and that the proposed updates would be clarifying that point. She also noted that some legislation had been referenced in the report but was not in the list of legislation and would look to correct this.

Members were also assured that the reference in point 19.10.4, on page 22, would be inserted, but that this point had been suggested in order to allow for a proposal at a Planning Committee to be presented again following further debate.  

In response to a question about if the timescale for implementation was appropriate, as the report had been through the Policy Advisory Group, the Constitution Review Task Group, and other internal procedures, the papers was considered ready to be adopted on 1 June 2025.

Overall, as the Committee was satisfied with the report, they agreed to recommend that the changes be adopted by Council.

RESOLVED: That the Committee recommend to Council that it approves, subject to the agreed amendments:

(a)  Part 6.8 Planning Appendix be adopted as set out in Appendix A to this report;

(b)  Part 11 Scheme of Delegation be updated as set out in Appendix B to this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8