7
The Committee received report ES/0781 which provided a summary of the applications presented to the Referral Panel in respect of the volume of traffic, level of Ward Member comment and statistics of the route of determination of all applications so presented. Councillor Ritchie, as the Cabinet Member for Planning & Coastal Management, introduced the report. In his introduction, Councillor Ritchie said that, as the responsible Cabinet Member, he had no cause for concern about the effectiveness of the referral panel and its processes. He added that he considered the referral panel to be efficient and effective in its role.
Councillor Cooper, as the Assistant Cabinet Member for Planning, praised what he described as the first class work of the referral panel. He said Councillors were encouraged to attend to see the work for themselves and reminded the Committee that Ward Members could submit comments for consideration by the panel, by email, up to the day before it met.
Councillor McCallum said that more Councillors had been able to attend the referral panel while it had been held remotely which was very welcome.
There being no questions and at the request of the Chairman, the recommendation was proposed by Councillor Ashdown and seconded by Councillor Cooper. The Chairman invited debate.
Councillor Hedgley stated that he would like Ward Members to be allowed to speak in person at the referral panels. He referred to sometimes inaccurate comments made by the panel which the Ward Member with their local knowledge would be able to correct. He noted that it was possible to send comments in to the panel in advance but that was not helpful, he said, in addressing inaccuracies on the day of the meeting. Councillor Hedgley said the presence of the Ward Member would enhance the democratic process. He noted that the Cabinet Member and Assistant Cabinet Member were pleased with the panel's work but suggested that constituents were not and that there was a need to make the decision-making process more transparent.
Councillor Ashdown reminded the Committee that comments could be provided up to the evening before the referral panel sat. He added that if every Ward Member attended to comment on applications in their ward the referral panel meeting would be too long.
Councillor Coulam said that if Ward Members commented at referral panel this might lead to debate which was not, she suggested, the purpose of the meeting. She added that she did not consider any changes were necessary.
Councillor Yule stated that she agreed with Councillor Hedgley. She warned that the public perception of the referral panel was not being considered and that as planning was always contentious it would be better to have the Ward Member present and able to comment on what the panel discuss. She added that sending an email in advance when the Ward Member did not know what might come up at the meeting was not helpful and did not allow the possibility to counter remarks made. Councillor Yule emphasised the need for the public to have confidence in the robust consideration of applications and that the perceived in-balance towards the referral panel as opposed to the public Planning Committees needed to be addressed.
Councillor Ritchie said that the referral panel was not meant to be a Planning Committee and reiterated its role as a means of "routing" applications. Councillor McCallum said that if Ward Members were allowed to speak it might necessitate the need to invite objectors, agents, developers etc. to the referral panel.
Councillor Cooper noted that of the 230 applications considered by the referral panel, 18 had been accompanied by pre-submitted comments by Ward Members; he suggested that this indicated that Ward Members were content with the current arrangements. Councillor Cooper also cautioned against the perception of pre-determination.
In response, Councillor Hedgley emphasised that he did not wish the referral panel to become a 'debating chamber'; rather he sought the ability to speak at the referral panel to comment on remarks or inaccuracies with the benefit of local knowledge. He stated that it was not possible to predict the making of such comments and so the advance email was ineffective in isolation and would be strengthened by the ability to speak too. In response to Councillor Cooper's point, Councillor Hedgley suggested that perhaps Ward Members did not attend the referral panel because they were not allowed to speak.
Councillor Rivett and Councillor Ritchie asked Councillor Hedgley to provide, outside of the meeting, an example of when the inability to speak at referral panel had created an issue. Councillor Rivett endorsed the contents of the report and agreed that the referral panel provided a good routing service for applications. He agreed that public perception was important but suggested that it was beholden on district Councillors to explain the process and why it existed
It was proposed, seconded and by majority vote
RESOLVED
That having received, questioned and discussed the report its contents be noted.
11.10am The meeting was adjourned briefly and reconvened at 11.20am. Councillor Gee left the meeting.