Agenda item

To consider the attached Planning Probity Protocol (Appendix A) related to the functions of the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC) Joint Committee. The Protocol describes how the Councils will deal with planning applications and other planning practices within the TCBGC area.

Members considered a report (A.4) which presented to it the proposed Planning Probity Protocol (Appendix A) related to the functions of the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC) Joint Committee. The Protocol applied and focused on the functions and responsibilities of the Joint Committee for determining planning applications within the TCBGC area. Executive functions, not connected with the DPD process or otherwise delegated to the Joint Committee, but nonetheless related to the TCBGC would remain with each Council to exercise.

The report was introduced by Lisa Hastings, Deputy Chief Executive & Monitoring Officer (Tendring District Council).

Members of the Joint Committee were expected to observe the requirements and principles as set out in the Protocol at all times when involving themselves in the planning process. The planning system relied on Councillors and Officers acting in a way which was fair and was clearly seen to be fair.  This included acting in accordance with planning law in all instances, and paying due regard to national and local policies, in addition to all other “material planning considerations”.

It was acknowledged that each of the Councils forming the Joint Committee had their own locally adopted Members’ Code of Conduct, which must always be complied with first by the Members from those respective authorities, particularly in respect of declarations of interest.. Those Codes were, however, very similar and based upon the national Nolan Principles.

It was recognised that decision-makers must not fetter their discretion by approaching the decision to determine a planning application with a closed mind.  It was a legal requirement to approach the determination of a planning application with an open mind in order to prevent a legal challenge for pre-determination or bias. Decisions needed to be taken in accordance with the Section 1 of the Local Plan and the Development Plan Document unless material considerations indicated otherwise. Members should come to a decision only after due consideration of all of the information reasonably required upon which to base a decision.

The Joint Committee was aware that Officers were responsible for carrying out their duties in compliance with the Royal Town Planning Institute Code of Conduct, in particular, that Officers must not make or subscribe to any statements which went against their own professional standards.

Members were advised that care would be needed when there was contact with applicants, developers and objectors. Certain structured meetings could occur where there was transparency, consistency and fairness to all. Members could express any view on the merits or otherwise of the proposal presented, though they should never state how they or other Members intended to vote at a joint committee meeting.

Councillors were further advised that they should explain to those lobbying or attempting to lobby them that, whilst they could listen to what was said, it might subsequently prejudice their impartiality, and therefore their ability to participate in the Joint Committee’s decision making, if they made any sort of promise to vote one way or another or expressed such a firm point of view that it amounted to the same thing.

The Joint Committee was reminded that its overriding duty was to the whole of the Garden Community area and not just to the people a specific Ward/Division and that, taking account of the need to make decisions impartially, Members should not improperly favour, or appear to improperly favour, any person, company, group or locality.

It was reported that all Councillors attending pre-application discussions must have first attended a training session on conduct at pre-application discussions.  Those training sessions would be organised by the respective Councils’ Planning Service on a regular basis in order to ensure that the integrity of the individual Councillor’s decision-making role was maintained.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Public Speaking Scheme for the Joint Committee, Bill Marshall addressed the Joint Committee on the subject matter of this item.

Councillor Andrea Luxford-Vaughan requested that her comments on this report be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Those comments were summarised as follows:-

(i)      The report and the Probity Protocol advocated common sense and was not contentious; and

(ii)     Sought clarification as to whether a Joint Committee member could represent themselves or another organisation (such as a parish council) as a Ward Councillor at Regulation 19 hearings.

Following a discussion and debate on matters pertaining to this report and questions by Members which were answered, as appropriate, by the Deputy Chief Executive & Monitoring Officer (Lisa Hastings):-

It was moved by Councillor Tom Cunningham, seconded by Councillor Carlo Guglielmiand:-

RESOLVED that the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community (TCBGC) Joint Committee Planning Probity Protocol, as attached at Appendix A to report A.4, be agreed and applied by Members and Officers.