Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Deacon and Molyneux and Councillor Green attended as a substitute for Councillor Deacon. 

Councillors Bennett and Plummer also submitted their apologies as Committee Members but attended the meeting to support Councillor Packard for item 5 relating to the Review of the PAS Report in their capacity as Planning Committee Chairs and on the PAS Task and Finish Group.

The Chair also welcomed Councillor Ewart who had requested to address the Committee for item 5.

On the proposition of Councillor Gooch, seconded by Councillor Jepson it was

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2026 be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

Following a request to Review the Planning Advisory Service’s (PAS) Report in relation to Planning Committees, the Committee received report ES/2789 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management.  The Chair outlined the order of speakers for the item and drew the Committee’s attention to the East Suffolk Planning Alliance (ESPA) papers which had been included on the agenda at ESPA’s request.

In response to the Chair’s invitation to introduce his report, the Cabinet Member stated that one of the Planning Committee North meetings had gone out of control with some residents making threats and a Councillor making allegations about probity.  It had been decided, therefore, to commission PAS to review Planning Committee procedures.  They had looked at the Planning Committee North meeting as well as a less controversial application considered by Planning Committee South to give some balance.  He added that PAS had interviewed various interested parties, including Town and Parish Councillors and members of the community.

At the Chair’s invitation, Councillor Plummer, the Planning Committee North Chair, stated that it had been difficult to cope with the fairly uncontrolled crowd at the particular meeting in question and, in retrospect, she should have stopped the meeting and removed those who were causing trouble.  She stressed that, whilst this was something that had gone wrong, the decision making had been sound.  Councillor Bennett, the Planning Committee South Chair, stated that, although they had not had such a difficult application that caused controversy, it did not mean they too should not be at the same level of scrutiny as everyone else.  He added that he had attended PAS training only a few months ago and what came up there had been echoed in the report, apart from in other parts of the country, it was common to have substitutes that were not necessarily of the same political Group because Planning was quasi-judicial, which he found interesting especially as they sometimes struggled to get substitutes.  He clarified that this was not in the PAS report but he wanted to raise it for Members’ views.

The Cabinet Member stated that, although the PAS review had come about because of a very difficult meeting, it had been beneficial as it was always good to review procedures and there were things identified that could be changed.  The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that Officers valued the opportunity to be scrutinised externally, especially as some had found the Planning Committee North meeting very stressful and difficult to deal with, so being able to speak to an external person about it had been really valuable to them.

In response to a question about why all nine of the PAS recommendations were not being implemented, the Head of Planning and Building Control went through each recommendation in turn:

1. Having the Council’s Planning Solicitor present at all Planning Committee meetings - It was felt that this would be a significant change for East Suffolk.  Some Councils had a Solicitor attend, but others did not.  The Task and Finish Group, which included representatives from Democratic Services and the Legal Team, had discussed the possibility and a trial had taken place with a Solicitor present, however, it had been felt that the Democratic Services Officers did a good job in maintaining the process and supporting the Chair, who was also fully supported by the Planning Officers with technical advice.  Planning Solicitors were only there to oversee what took place and assist the process but did not provide opinion.  The Planning Team had a good collaborative approach with the Council’s Legal Team and they were engaged for challenging applications and sometimes Barristers were engaged too.  Overall, it had been felt that having a Solicitor present would have been a big change and what the Council already had worked, so it was decided that continuing without a Solicitor present was the best way forward.
   
   
2. Review the Length of Committee Reports and Officer Presentations - Planning was a complex matter and Officers were very diligent in how they wrote the reports with a lot of oversight from the Senior Planners, however, making reports more accessible by being more succinct would be worthwhile.  Planning law stated that Councils had to show the thought process rather than detail absolutely everything.
   
   
3. Earlier Engagement of Committee Members – This was the biggest potential change for Planning Committee Members who were now given advance notice about what was coming up so they could engage with Officers ahead of the meeting.  PAS had felt that meetings were very inquisitorial whereas other Councils were not, so by having earlier engagement, it was hoped they would be less so.
   
   
4. Reduce Opportunities to Question Officers - To avoid all the back and forth that had previously occurred, PAS had suggested there should be just one part of the formal process for Councillors to ask Officers questions instead of them being able to do so after both the Officer's presentation and after public speaking. The Strategic Planning Committee had agreed with this recommendation but had also decided to allow Members an opportunity to confirm any details of the Officer’s presentation through the Chair.
   
   
5. Update the Chair's introduction – An explanation would be given at the start of the meeting to explain to the public what would happen as they did not necessarily understand the process which could add to the friction, so having better clarity was worthwhile.
   
   
6. Public Speaking Visual Aids – Public speakers had 3 minutes often followed by extensive questioning which was frequently accompanied by visual presentations that had grown from perhaps 1 slide and photo to numerous slides that were not necessarily in synch with what the speaker was saying.  It could also bring up new information late in the day and given Planning Committees were quasi-judicial, evidence should be seen in advance.  Speakers would still be able to send photos in advance which would be added to Public Access and be referred to in Officer presentations.  It was important for them to specify if anything had been produced using AI so having it in advance also enabled Officers to verify information.
   
   
7. Restriction on Visitor Numbers to Manage Risk – Councillors and Officers had been verbally and physically approached during meetings which was wrong. There was a very close distance in the meeting rooms to where the public were sitting so it could get unruly and impact on fire safety capacity.  The Task and Finish Group had felt that limiting numbers in the public gallery was a pragmatic approach.
   
   
8. Training for Committee Members – Over 30 hours of in-house training had been provided for Councillors in this Administration.  The Government was formalising the way Planning training would be undertaken in future and Councillors would require certification.
   
   
9. Develop a Specific Planning Protocol – This was recommended a few years ago and it would be great to have a stand-alone Committee document, however, there was a question over whether it should be produced now ahead of LGR.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member, Planning Committee Chairs and the Head of Planning and Building Control and the following responses were received to Committee Members questions:

• Having more interaction between Committee Members and officers prior to the meeting could give the impression that decisions were already being made and things were happening behind closed doors but this would be navigated closely - Members could contact Case Officers if they had questions but should not seek to influence anything as Planning Committee Members needed to retain an open mind.  At the start of meetings, Members were asked if they had any declarations of interest and it was expected that if someone had spoken to an Officer at length then they should declare that.
• There had been a lot of general Planning training, some carried out by external consultees such as the Flood Authority, and more informal lunch and learn sessions.  Planning Committee Members had to go through mandatory training to be able to sit on the Committee.  They had to watch recordings, confirm they had watched them, then meet with the Head of Planning and Building Control or the Planning Manager to go through any questions of clarity.  Encouraging Members to attend training was challenging so very important sessions were held after Strategic Planning Committees to make sure the right people were in the room to receive it.  They had talked about having evening training sessions but they had to be mindful of Officer availability.  The highest levels of attendance at sessions were from Planning Committee and Local Plan Working Group Members but it was acknowledged there was some scope for improving attendance of other Members. Committee Members might benefit from receiving a session on the specifics of the Local Plan to ensure everyone was familiar with it and how it related to applications.
• The main thing for residents to understand was how an application went through a Town and Parish Council and that, if they were against it, what happened next.  Residents needed to be reassured that they were listened to, but it helped if they did not get too emotional and realised that Officers generally only responded to applications in planning terms.
• The fixed cameras in the Committee rooms had limitations whereas other Authorities had systems that zoomed in on faces and picked up better audio.  ICT were in the process of trialling new cameras.
• Some of the Council’s Legal Team were very skilled in planning law but it had not been felt there would be a huge amount of value in them attending every meeting as Committees were usually very well supported by Democratic Services, however, the Chair or Officers might feel it beneficial to have a Solicitor present for a particularly challenging or controversial application.
• The Planning Team could work with Comms to create a short video to explain how the Committee meeting process worked including the presumption to pass applications, with a link to the video in the agenda pack.
• Some PAS interviewees had raised that there was an imbalance between how long Officers and public speakers had to talk with some saying it ought to be more equitable, however, Officers had a professional role to play and had to ensure that complex information was understood, therefore, there had to be a different proportion.
• Risk assessing meetings was a bit of a blind spot.  Planning Committee meetings were held in public but they were not public meetings.  There were differences between the Riverside and East Suffolk House buildings with Riverside having an element of security that was not available at East Suffolk House, so there were risks and each meeting was risk assessed on a case by case basis.
• The Task and Finish Group explored the option of minimising the number of public in the chamber and whether to have an overflow room as part of the safety risk assessment but this would require another Democratic Services Officer to be in the overflow room.  Due to the different layouts in the buildings, this would be difficult at Riverside as the public could not go through the barriers.  It had been agreed, therefore that items that were likely to have a large amount of public speaking would be put on the agenda first and, if necessary, the public brought in one item at a time.
• It was understandable that communities wanted to attend en masse for controversial applications but they needed to understand that it was not really about how many people turned up.  The proper way was for everyone to make representations in writing so they were considered by the Committee.  It was important that Committee Members heard from the right people who were speaking, irrespective of how many people sat behind them and this needed to be stressed to the public.
• Public speaking often lasted longer than 3 minutes as the presentations were complimented by Committee questions.  If a public speaker had visual information then this should be submitted with the objection or letter of support so it could be considered.  If it was later in the process, then photographs etc could still be submitted to the Case Officer and they would add it to Public Access so everyone could view it.
• The statutory consultation period was three weeks and the Team were often asked for extensions.  Town and Parish Councils should contact Case Officers if they wanted an extension beyond the three weeks.

The Chair invited Councillor Ewart to address the Committee and she thanked Members for the opportunity before stating that, as the instigator of these concerns, she welcomed the opportunity to respond to the PAS report and to support the Committee’s understanding of the wider context.  She explained that it was particularly important because Members might not be aware how far the recommendations from the Task and Finish Group had already progressed through internal channels including the Constitution Review Working Group, where fundamental changes had been described as “small” and the Strategic Planning Committee, where, in her view, the information provided was insufficient for fully informed decision-making, detailed debate was not taken up, yet a vote had been taken, with Members subsequently discussing their discomfort at doing so.  She added that she was unable to establish when the Constitution Review Working Group, a group of just five Members, had acquired the authority to effectively endorse or advance planning decisions, nor could she establish when the Cabinet or Full Council allowed for the executive function in this important department to fall away. 

Councillor Ewart stressed that the PAS review was not self-starting but had followed serious discussions she had with the Chief Executive, Leader and others, raising concerns about the performance of the Council’s Planning function, particularly around enforcement, consistency and lawful decision-making.  Those concerns were reinforced through the PAS training she had undertaken in 2025 which confirmed that this level of scrutiny was entirely normal elsewhere. 

The Committee was informed that, whilst the report was informative, Councillor Ewart believed the recommendations were flawed in the context of the service this Council provided to its residents.  She added that the concerns were not hers alone.  ESPA, representing some 63 communities, reflected widespread frustration with East Suffolk’s Planning Service.  Their submission on the agenda should be treated as material evidence as they represented the end users of the system and were experiencing its realities first-hand.  The PAS review itself focussed on process, not legality and reflected a single professional opinion, not an independently tested or collectively agreed position. 

Councillor Ewart referred to paragraph 7.5 which identified a central issue that Committees might want to refuse an application but could not articulate defensible planning reasons due to insufficient Legal and Officer support.  This was seen in practice in case 4213.  Members, presented with the facts, were left without the support needed to articulate evident policy reasons for refusal, with the consequence of seeing a community blighted for a lifetime.  Disappointingly, the Task and Finish Group, which also comprised Senior Planning Officers, had not fully carried forward the PAS recommendation for proper Planning Legal advice, with the cost and availability cited as constraints.  Access to appropriate professional support was fundamental and should not be treated as optional. 

Moving on to PAS recommendations 2, 3, 4 6 and 7, Councillor Ewart stated that they appeared to focus on limiting what was termed “external challenge” – in other words, public participation ie your residents.  She stressed that she found this a concerning direction.  If the Officer’s case was sound, transparency and scrutiny should strengthen it, not be seen as a risk.  These proposals went to the heart of democratic planning.  Restricting submitted material, tightening participation, reducing report detail, and moving questions away from the Committee setting was far from acceptable.  At a time when changes to the National Planning Policy Framework were already placing pressure on local democratic scrutiny, she suggested this Council should be strengthening its processes not weakening them.  Planning decisions were a public process.  Residents must be able to demonstrate what was happening on the ground and contribute meaningfully.  Members, in turn, needed sufficient information and the opportunity to question – that was how good decision-making worked. Councillor Ewart stated that, only recently in the Otley College Bus and HGV training application, a resident presented a real-time image of an HGV navigating a narrow lane, while the Officer presentation depicted a quiet, leafy lane.  That contrast between lived reality and what was presented to Members was significant and it mattered. 

Finally, on process, Councillor Ewart stated that a Task and Finish Group was followed by a Constitution Review Working Group, with overlapping membership and no external input – including no engagement with ESPA, despite it being the Council’s own community engagement body.  That was a missed opportunity to introduce balance and challenge into proposals with significant public impact.

In closing, Councillor Ewart stated that her concern was not only the recommendations themselves but how they had been arrived at, through routes that lacked clarity, broad Member discussion and, in her view, proper authority. She added that, for completeness, she had written to the Leader again setting out these concerns.  She concluded by saying that the decisions Councillors took today would have lasting consequences for public trust, confidence and democratic planning outcomes and she urged Members to pause, adjourn implementation and allow for a proper review.  If these measures were truly a “trial” as the Monitoring Officer suggested to her last week, then now was the moment to apply good governance and consider this more broadly.  She thanked the Committee again for the opportunity to speak.

The Chair thanked Councillor Ewart who responded to questions from Members as follows:

• The public’s reaction to the Planning Committee North case 4213 was due to desperation, they did not do a Judicial Review because the village did not have the money.
• Councillor Hedgley suggested at the Strategic Planning Committee that if an aspect of democracy was taken away from the public then perhaps speakers could be given 4 minutes to speak as a balance but that was not supported.
• Decisions like this affected all 55 Councillors so all Members should be involved not just those on the Committees.
• Retrospective planning applications were a recurring problem which was why she had asked for more revenue for planning enforcement.
• She had met ESPA about a year ago and they were predominantly villages but she was not part of them, although Councillor Langdon-Morris was an advocate for them.  They had meetings with the Chief Executive and Leader.  She stated that she found it perplexing that if this happened on her watch with all those people complaining then she would want to remove it by dealing with their issues.  Parishes joined ESPA because they needed support.  Some of the NSIP villages had joined and received some benefit from it.  They were intelligent and informed, and not to be obfuscated.

In response to Councillor Gooch’s question, the Democratic Services Officer clarified that it had not felt appropriate to invite ESPA to speak as this Committee had not commissioned the review, however, when approached, the Chair had been happy to allow ESPA to submit their views for the Committee to consider.

The Committee adjourned for a comfort break from 8.03pm to 8.14pm during which Councillor Ewart left the meeting.

At the Chair's invitation to sum up, the Cabinet Member stated that he had listened to what Councillor Ewart had said but had not understood most of what she had said and he asked the Head of Planning and Building Control to respond to the points she raised.

The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that, in terms of the process, Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) had taken place on 13 April 2026 and ultimately endorsed and accepted the recommendations subject to a slight tweak but it was important to note that SPC was empowered to make changes to the planning process.  It had 19 members and was politically balanced and was ultimately not a political forum as they needed to give good consideration to things.  SPC was used effectively and was informed by the Task and Finish Group who had come up with some minor changes which were then able to be automatically agreed by the Constitution Review Working Group and, as detailed in the report, two of them were trialled in the month leading up to the SPC so Members were well informed.  As a result of SPC there was no reason to change them unless this Committee suggested doing so.  It was not felt there was any harm in that first process of having a trial as it could have been undone if Members felt it necessary but there was no need to and ultimately it had been given full exposure and transparency to those points. 

In relation to Councillor Hedgley’s suggestion to allow public speakers 4 minutes instead of 3, that was debated fairly by the Committee and the Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he had informed Members that they could come up with a motion to amend the recommendations and vote upon it if they wished, so they had that opportunity.  With regard to the comments about Judicial Reviews, interested parties in a planning decision could challenge it by pursuing a Judicial Review and have the decision quashed.  Sometimes it did not even have to go to Court if the legal exchanges took place and it was decided something wrong happened then the application could be redetermined.  In this case, a pre-action protocol letter had been served on the Council setting out the legal arguments as to why that decision could be quashed, the Council had responded with a legal view and ultimately there was no decision by the interested party to take it forward to a legal challenge, so the proper process served its purpose in that case.

The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that ESPA was first formed in around 2022/23 and there were exchanges between Officers and early members of ESPA, mainly as a result of an application in Grundisburgh.  Ultimately it was a positive group that the Council wanted to work with which collected people who had strong feelings on planning matters for them to engage with the Council.  Chris Bally had suggested forming a Community Engagement Group (CEG) with them to complement the existing Town and Parish Council engagement as it was accepted they did not always speak for their communities.  The CEG had clear Terms of Reference and met quarterly with Senior Officers, Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member attending.  It was an excellent forum with the freedom to express news on planning matters, to have a direct response, to be recorded and for certain recommendations to be taken away and implemented.    Key principles of the terms of reference were mutual respect; listen, learn and question; engagement; understanding; system wide; sovereignty; accountability; limitations; collaboration and diversity.  The PAS recommendations had been discussed at the January CEG and ESPA had presented the same letter appended to the report discussed at the meeting.  The Chief Executive had given comprehensive feedback on the letter and the PAS process, especially on how independent, fair and thorough the review was and there had been an exchange of views and opinions and he felt it had been left on good terms.  The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he was, therefore, personally disappointed that the letter had also been submitted to this meeting and that the leading quote related to “sunlight was the best disinfectant” as he could not emphasise enough how much Planners tried to be transparent and how much integrity there was in the planning process.  He acknowledged that planning suffered from a long history of claims of corruption and “brown envelopes” but it was still very disappointing to see that quote especially given the process that had been through openly with Members, communities and ESPA and PAS had been allowed to engage directly, and question extensively, those who had participated with the planning process, therefore, there was complete sunlight, transparency and fairness, and the response received from PAS was comprehensive and fair.  The Council wanted to continue that collaborative relationship and use ESPA to help inform communities on how to engage with the planning process effectively to make sure when go into the incredibly complex process of developing a new Local Plan that created a huge amount of strong feeling that they are on hand to work with the community in a fair and impartial way as well.  They met regularly and he had recently attended ESPA’s annual conference which he felt had been very positive.  He had spent three hours answering questions on the planning process and had valued the opportunity as it had exposed a number of different viewpoints.  He explained that it was slightly more southern and central focussed but did not have a Lowestoft presence, therefore, he had asked for the next CEG meeting to take place in Lowestoft and he wanted a Lowestoft focus on that.  He concluded that he welcomed their contribution but was concerned that the papers they submitted did not reflect the discussions that took place at the CEG.

The Chair asked if the PAS report had been written by a single person and, if so, if it had then been reviewed by PAS.  The Head of Planning and Building Control clarified that the Planning Advisory Service was a component of the Local Government Association. PAS provided training and support for Planning Committee chairs and vice-chairs, as well as impartial and fair advice on planning changes which was available to everybody.  They also specialised in peer reviews.  East Suffolk had contemplated asking for a peer review but had felt it would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut, so it had been agreed to take PAS up on their recommendation to have a more focussed approach instead. PAS had selected an experienced peer reviewer to take the lead and he was accompanied by a PAS officer.  PAS had reviewed many planning committees nationally over the last few years and they had also produced a self-assessment health check guidance Councils could use which was available on their website.  The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he felt it was a fair and balanced review even though only one person wrote it.  He added that it cost about £10K but the Council had received Government funding for it.

The Chair asked if the Task and Finish Group had been politically balanced and also queried why this Committee had been asked to scrutinise it after Strategic Planning Committee had already made its decision as he felt it would have been better for this Committee’s views to be considered as part of their deliberations.  The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the Task and Finish Group had been led by the Planning Manager and included the Cabinet Member and the Chairs of both Planning Committees.  Councillor Bennett stated that it was a Planning matter and, as he had mentioned earlier, planning was not politically framed, therefore, the Task and Finish Group did not need to be politically balanced.  He added that there had been a lot of meetings and he felt having just the two chairs and the Cabinet Member on the Group had been appropriate.  The Head of Planning and Building Control pointed out that the Constitution stated that the Strategic Planning Committee was the decision maker so it felt right that they considered the PAS recommendations first with this Committee scrutinising that decision and it would have skewed things if it had been the other way round.

In response to Councillor Thompson’s question, the Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that Officers never ignored anything added to the Planning Portal as every representation received had to be considered, so they were read by the Case Officer and summarised in the report to capture everything in a concise way.  He added that Officers often received criticism from the public that they had not been listened to, however, if it was on the portal, then it was read by the Case Officer, if it triggered a Referral Panel, then it would have been read by them, it would be consulted on and referred to at Committee.

Councillor Ninnmey queried if any work was being done on a Site Visits Protocol.  The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that it was a component of the PAS report but there had not been a clear recommendation, however, the Council was putting a Site Visit Protocol in place because it was important how they were managed to ensure Members and interested parties were looked after and safe.  Something being introduced, although details were still being finalised, was the Referral Panel’s ability to decide on taking a site visit to speed up the process.

Councillor Gooch asked if it would be made clear that visuals could only be submitted during the consultation process as they did not want people to just turn up at a meeting and be told that they could not submit anything.  The Cabinet Member stated that people often came in late saying they had several photos and asking for them to be put up on screen but especially now with AI they could come in with anything so that was why the decision had been made to restrict it and for them to be submitted to the Case Officer beforehand.  The Head of Planning and Building Control clarified that the consultation period was the most important time for people to get their views across but they could still submit a visual during the course of an application even if it was just before the Committee meeting and the Officers would then refer to it in their presentation.  He acknowledged that there was something about how this was expressed in information given to the public so they understood.  Councillor Gooch stressed the need for it to be made clear which was echoed by Councillor Bennett.  Councillor Plummer stated that until they knew an application was going to a Planning Committee, most people did not engage with the process so there was a need to make it clear that by that time it was almost too late, so messaging should be much clearer.  In response to the Chair’s question on whether the public could submit something the day before a meeting, the Head of Planning and Building Control clarified that the previous rule was that they could submit anything up to 24 hours before a meeting so it could be included on the update sheet if necessary.  He added that the best time, however, was during the consultation period but if not then ASAP so it could be loaded to the portal so everyone could see it.

Councillor Bennett referred to ESPA’s comments and stated that, before he had become a Councillor, he had also wondered about “brown envelopes” but having now been involved in the Planning process for a long time there was absolutely no evidence of it in the process, or the way the Team operated.  Specifically in relation to point 7 of ESPA’s response regarding restricting attendance and limiting evidence, he felt this was slightly disingenuous as restricting attendance was about security concerns not attempting to restrict public access to the process.  In terms of limiting evidence, he explained that it was just about changing the order and making it less Officer heavy and fairer to the public.  He clarified that there were lots of things in ESPA’s report that he thought was fair but not these comments.

The Chair invited Members to debate and make any recommendations.  

Councillor Jepson stated that he was disappointed to read the ESPA report because, from what he had understood from Officers, the relationship had been quite healthy but the report did not reflect that.  He was also slightly concerned by Councillor Ewart’s comments particularly her suggestion that the Constitution Review Working Group was in some way trying to limit what influence other organisations had, as that body was there to make decisions on how the Council operated internally.  He stated that it was a shame because it was clear a lot of positive work was being done and the Council had asked for the Planning process to be scrutinised.  He pointed out that PAS had suggested several ways to do things better and some recommendations had been accepted, so it was disappointing how much negativity there was for something that was an open and transparent process.  He suggested that perhaps some of the negativity stemmed from where Planning had come from some time ago but it was a shame that it still filtered through the system.

Councillor Lynch suggested the Committee consider the following recommendations to Cabinet:

1. The development of a specific Planning Protocol irrespective of LGR as it might be something that could be taken forward into the new Unitary as best practice.
2. Annual Refresher Training for Members of the Planning Committees.
3. The creation of “How To” Planning Guides, uploaded to the website for Councillors and members of the public, to include some links to further information, in an attempt to reduce some of the friction.
4. The creation of laminated A4 sheets detailing how the Committee meeting would proceed, including the process for public speaking, with these being made available in the public gallery during Committee meetings so the public were clear on what would happen in which order.

The Chair commented that the laminated A4 sheets were similar to the earlier suggestion of creating a video and he agreed about the need for annual training.  In response to the Chair’s question about whether developing a Planning Protocol now would be a burden on Officers given LGR, the Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the Task and Finish Group had considered the PAS recommendation and had felt a practical guide could be developed now but maybe not go as far as a full Protocol.  However, on reflection, he felt a Protocol could be produced and, although there might be some changes due to the imminent national planning reforms, there might be merit in getting ahead of it.  He added that he was the Planning lead for LGR across the County so he could make it happen.

Councillor Gooch stated that she supported the idea of having laminated sheets available during meetings but suggested this should be supplemented by a “how to” video guide to introduce members of the public to the process for a Planning Committee meeting.  She added that communication in respect of illustrations also needed to be crystal clear eg the format that could be used and that perhaps they should be submitted with a statement that they were a genuine illustration/photograph that had not been adapted by AI or other software.  The Chair agreed it would be good to have guides on the website to inform people and highlighting that the consultation period was when they would have the greatest impact, not at a Planning Committee meeting.  He added that he often directed people to a list of things that they could object to, but it was actually on another website not the Council’s.  Councillor Gooch endorsed this comment, adding that she too had referred people to other websites on what constituted a material consideration, as it was not clear on East Suffolk’s website.

Councillor Ninnmey stated that the three-week consultation period was not a great amount of time and he was not sure how this could be addressed but making it clearer about the process would help.  He expressed concern about the proposal regarding public access to meetings and suggested that Cabinet follow the PAS recommendation and look at arranging an overflow room and that the audio/cameras should be upgraded as a matter of some urgency.  He also referred to the suggestion in the PAS report about having a Site Visit Protocol and stated that he felt this would be a good idea as he personally had felt intimidated at a previous site visit with the applicant conducting the visit rather than the Councillors saying what they wanted to see.  Councillors had also been precluded from gathering evidence themselves which could have been shared with those not able to get to the meeting.  In response to the Chair’s query, the Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the idea for a Site Visit Protocol was captured within the wider Planning Protocol and the Site Visit Protocol was already drafted with some changes already having been implemented to make site visits more of an option.  He clarified that site visits had to be led by Planning Officers but when on third party land they were reliant on that third party guiding and supporting everyone throughout the visit.

Councillor Jepson pointed out that some Committee Members might not support all the recommendations being suggested eg personally he did not support the idea of having an overflow room.  In response, the Chair recapped the possible recommendations that had been  made, namely the development of a Planning Protocol, annual refresher training, more information pre the Planning meetings eg on the website and videos and the printed cards for during meetings. In relation to Councillor Ninnmey’s comment about the three-week consultation period not being long enough he asked if this could be changed.  The Head of Planning and Building Control responded that the Council should try to determine minor applications within 8 weeks and major ones within 13 weeks but Town and Parish Councils could ask for an extension to the consultation period if they needed it and they often did.  The Chair continued that a suggestion had also been made about having a second room and whether the audio/cameras were good enough, and a Site Visit Protocol but it had been clarified this had already been dealt with, so he asked which of the recommendations Members wanted to agree.

Councillor Jepson proposed the first four recommendations eg the creation of a Planning Protocol, annual training, more pre-application information including the creation of videos and meeting information, but not the recommendation from Councillor Ninnmey to have an overflow room.

Councillor Cawley queried if the Planning Protocol would include clarification on how much time Planning Officers had and the public speaker would have in meetings.  Councillor Lynch stated that this would be made clear as part of the Planning Protocol as it would cover the whole process including the Site Visit Protocol.  In response to the Chair’s query about whether the Protocol was already in train with respect to LGR, the Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that work was already progressing on the Protocol and this Committee’s recommendations could be taken on board.  In relation to Councillor Cawley’s point about whether it should cover the amount of time taken by Officers speaking, he stated he would be cautious about this given all applications were different so his view was that the focus should be on what the optimum amount of time was for determining an application and enough time should be factored in for each segment to avoid a meeting over running.

Councillor Ninnmey reiterated his proposal that the PAS recommendations should be followed regarding planning meeting capacity by having an overflow room.  Councillor Lynch stated that he was concerned that the current office buildings did not have the right set up to allow for having an overflow room available for each Planning meeting and he pointed out that Officers could bring in the public for their specific item without overloading the main meeting room.  He added that otherwise there would be an additional burden to staff overflow rooms and this would also create more risk for Officers.  The Chair agreed.  Councillor Gooch agreed to the principle of Councillor Ninnmey’s suggestion to keep people safe but she expressed concern that the Council offices were not set up to have overflow rooms, therefore, she was sceptical that such a recommendation would work in reality.  Councillor Green stated that later in the report there was a lot of discussion about having the additional room but he was happy to accept that it was not practical.  The Chair stated that it was likely to happen rarely but the main point was that the Council had to be prepared to deal with large crowds eg put any controversial applications on an agenda first and bring people in and out at the appropriate time etc.  Councillor Gooch stated that she supported Councillor Cawley’s earlier comment that meetings should be individually risk assessed and if necessary alternative provision arranged for controversial meetings but not for standard ones.

On the proposition of Councillor Jepson, seconded by Councillor Lynch it was

RESOLVED

That report ES/2789 be noted and Cabinet be recommended to agree the following:

1. That a specific Planning Protocol be developed.
2. That Members of the Planning Committee receive Annual Refresher Training.
3. That “How To” Planning Guides and videos be created and uploaded to the Council’s website to provide Councillors and members of the public with a greater understanding of the whole of the Planning process eg whether an application was needed; how to submit an application; what constituted a material consideration; making it clear speakers could only submit unedited or otherwise unmanipulated visual material in advance of any Committee meeting not on the day itself; and also detailing the procedure for a Planning Committee meeting eg to illustrate the space, layout and order of the meeting.
4. That laminated A4 sheets be created detailing how the Committee meeting would proceed, including the process for public speaking, and these be made available in the public gallery during Committee meetings so the public were clear on what would happen in which order.

In response to Councillor Cawley’s question about capacity to deliver the recommendations, the Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he had recently met with MHCLG to explore opportunities for working with other Norfolk and Suffolk Councils to increase the number of qualified planners eg East Suffolk had grown 24 planners through apprenticeships since 2019.  He added that the recommendations suggested would be an opportunity for some of the junior Planners and the Comms team to work together so, whilst they were constrained, he was happy that they could deliver on the recommendations.

Councillor Ninnmey left the meeting at 9.10pm.

Councillor Gooch stated that the Council’s new website was much improved but just needed a few tweaks.  She also made the point that there was a lot of NSIP work going on across the district such as nuclear power stations and pylons and it was possible that part of the disgruntlement was that the general public did not understand that the Council had little control over that but, where possible, the Council wanted to give them a voice where we could as a lot of people felt done to rather than listened to.

In response to the Head of Planning and Building Control’s query, it was confirmed that this Committee did not wish to make any changes to what had been agreed by the Strategic Planning Committee in relation to the PAS Report recommendations and the recommendations agreed tonight were additional ones for Cabinet to consider.

Councillors Bennett and Plummer left the meeting at 9.13pm.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management for his response to the pre-set Cabinet Member Scrutiny Session questions and, in response to a question from Councillor Lynch, he gave an update on the Thorpeness situation. He also reported that East Suffolk would receive a share of £18M from the Government who were providing additional funding this year towards adaptation with the aim of letting the coast evolve as it wanted rather than defending the coastline.  He added that the Council spent £3M annually on repairs and maintenance, such as the promenades at Felixstowe and Southwold etc.  It was noted that a strategy for the whole of the East Coast was expected next year.  He added that the impact of LGR had not been determined yet, however, as the report covered all the coastline, it should be able to be separated out into each Unitary area if necessary.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and Officers for their report.

The Chair reminded the Committee that they periodically received an update on the recommendations made throughout the year.

In the absence of any comments, on the proposition of Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Gooch, it was

RESOLVED

That the update report on Committee recommendations be noted.

The Chair stated that the Committee had now come to the end of its Work Programme this year and, on behalf of himself and Councillor Deacon, he thanked Members for all their hard work.  He also expressed thanks to the Cabinet Members, Officers and guest speakers for their positive participation in the Council's scrutiny function, as well as to the Officers who had guided them through the process.