Agenda item

To consider whether a wider review of the Council’s Members’ Planning Code & Protocol adopted in 2015 and updated in 2021, should be undertaken following the request by Cabinet and Council to give further guidance to site visit procedures, reflecting upon whether a revised approach should be taken to produce an easier to understand document.

The Committee considered whether a wider review of the Council’s ‘Members’ Planning Code & Protocol’ adopted in 2015 (and subsequently updated in 2021), should be undertaken following the request by Cabinet and Council to give further guidance to site visit procedures, reflecting upon whether a revised approach should be taken to produce an easier to understand document.

It was reported that, in December 2019, the Local Government Association (LGA) had issued its ‘Probity in Planning Guidance – Advice for Councillors and Officers making planning decisions’. This document was included as Appendix A to item A.2 of the Report of the Monitoring Officer.  The Standards Committee had subsequently agreed through its work programme to review the Council’s Planning Code & Protocol following the LGA publication.

Members were informed that, following the 2020/21 review, no further changes had been suggested as a result of the LGA’s guidance. However, additional wording had been recommended to cover situations when it was not possible to undertake Site Visits and to clarify that this would not impact upon the Planning Committee’s ability to determine planning applications.  The Council’s current version of the Council’s Planning Code and Protocol was attached as Appendix B to the Officer report.

The Committee was reminded that, following the work of the Constitution Review Working Party (CRWP) in late 2022 and 2023, and consequent recommendations from Cabinet, Full Council had resolved at its meeting on 2nd March 2023 (minute no. 106 referred) that:-

(d) the Monitoring Officer be requested to amend the Council’s procedure for Planning Committee Site visits, as set out in the Members’ Planning Code and Protocol (in Part 6 of the Constitution) to appropriately reflect the matters raised by the Review of the Constitution Portfolio Holder Working Party; and

(e) the Monitoring Officer be further requested to submit the Site Visit Procedure, as amended, to Full Council for its approval and adoption, following consultation, as appropriate and necessary, with the Planning Committee and the Standards Committee.

The matters raised by the CRWP were contained within the body of the Officer report, in the Background Section, and related to lobbying, site visits, training and links to the Code of Conduct.  The Monitoring Officer felt that a definition of lobbying could easily be included and additional wording provided for site visits.  The recent training of the Planning Committee Members and their substitutes (and which had been offered to all Members), had been delivered in May 2023, and had covered site visits.  However, it was now proposed by the Monitoring Officer that a wider review of the Council’s Protocol be undertaken, not to alter the principles thereof but to produce a more user-friendly document.

The Committee was made aware that through the production of the Planning Probity Protocol for the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee in 2022, as set out at Appendix C to the Officer report, a different format had been adopted, and which was considered to be easier to follow. 

In addition, the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) through their website outlined some of the best practice they had found to assist Councils in reviewing their own codes of practice.  Various examples were suggested for different elements, such as councillor involvement in pre-application advice, interests, lobbying, dealing with petitions, officer member relationships, ward councillor involvement, site visits, referral of delegated applications to Planning Committee, public speaking, training etc.

In respect of lobbying the Monitoring Officer’s report had included, for Members’ information, the pertinent details of a judgment made by Mr Justice Dove in the High Court in 2020 in relation to the case of R. (Holborn Studios Ltd) v. London Borough of Hackney [2020] EWHC 1509 (Admin).

Members were aware that the CRWP, Cabinet and subsequently, Full Council had requested the Monitoring Officer to provide a definition of Lobbying. 

The Monitoring Officer stated in her report that lobbying was when an individual or a group tried to persuade someone to support a particular policy or campaign.  Lobbying could be done in person, by the sending of letters and/or emails or via social media.

Lobbying meant, in a professional capacity, attempting to influence, or advising those who wished to influence, the UK Government, Parliament, the devolved legislatures or administrations, regional or local government or other public bodies on any matter within their competence.

The LGA’s Probity in Planning stated:

“Lobbying is a normal part of the planning process.  Those who may be affected by a planning decision, whether through an application, a site allocation in a development plan or an emerging policy, will often seek to influence it through an approach to their ward member or to a member of the planning committee.  As the Nolan Committee’s 1997 report 13 states: ‘It is essential for the proper operation of the planning system that local concerns are adequately ventilated.  The most effective and suitable way that this can be done is through the local elected representatives, the councillors themselves’.  Lobbying, however, can lead to the impartiality and integrity of a councillor being called into question, and so care and common sense must be exercised by all parties involved.”

In addition, Mr Justice Dove had concluded in his Judgement referred to above (at paragraph 79) that:-

“Receiving communications from objectors to an application for planning permission is an important feature of freedom of expression in connection with democratic decision-taking and in undertaking this aspect of local authority business”.

It was therefore recommended by the Monitoring Officer that at this stage, rather than simply add wording to the existing Planning Code & Protocol, a fresh review be undertaken of that document.

It was moved by Councillor J Henderson, seconded by Councillor Newton and:-

RESOLVED that -  

(a)    the contents of the Monitoring Officer’s Report and the fact that the Site Visit procedure was included within the recent mandatory training to Planning Committee Members, their substitutes and that this was available to all Members of the Council, be noted;

(b)    the different approach adopted for the Planning Probity Protocol for the Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community Joint Committee, and that the Planning Advisory Service suggests some best practice for Planning Committee Protocols following the LGA’s Probity in Planning Guidance, be also noted; and

(c)    a review of the Council’s Planning Protocol be carried out to ensure that it is adhering to best practice and easy to follow.