Agenda item

On 7 October 2009, Planning Committee would be considering the future of the Chairman’s Delegation Meeting (ChDM).  The Planning Portfolio Holder had been consulted and had opted to consider his response at a Planning and New Communities Portfolio Holders' meeting, at which a number of parish council’s were represented.  Comments had been received from the parish councils in Bourn, Caxton, Comberton, Harlton, Heydon, Histon, Impington, Linton, Little Gransden, Longstowe, Meldreth, Milton, Stapleford, Steeple Mordenand Swavesey.

Recognising parish councils’ concern relating to the transparency of discussion at ChDM, the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) reminded those present that such meetings had been introduced as a means of introducing an element of local member involvement at officer delegation meetings.  ChDM.  He emphasised that ChDM did not determine planning applications but simply decided whether to forward those applications before it to officers or to the full Planning Committee.  It represented a statutory procedure with democratic input.

Central Government required a minimum of 90% of all planning applications to be dealt with under delegation.  The Planning Portfolio Holder reminded those present that this created its own pressure in terms of timescale.  He also noted that every application present at ChDM was accompanied by a report prepared by officers.

The Planning Portfolio Holder confirmed that the options outlined in the report had been publicised through the Weekly Bulletin. 

Members and parish council representatives made the following points:

·               The notice given of upcoming items was often too short

·               Transparency and local knowledge were crucial

·               Parish councils are consulted early in the process and are often unaware of what other consultees are saying.  This made it difficult to identify and request Conditions.

·               Parish councils should at least be allowed to listen to discussions, even if representatives could not speak

·               Reversion to all-day Committee meetings considering items previously dealt with under delegation had significant cost and officer-time implications, and would conflict with the Council’s aim to determine at least 90% of applications at delegation.

·               Approximate times for ChDM agenda items would be useful

·               Parish councils and local members sometimes have different opinions about planning applications

·               Parish councils should be given “listening rights” at ChDM for a trial period of 6-12 months

·               All comments submitted in writing were given proper consideration

It was suggested that where a local member could not attend ChDM, an elected or co-opted parish Councillor should be allowed to attend, with full speaking rights, as substitute.  In reply, the Legal Officer said that only local members had the right to speak at ChDM.

The Planning Portfolio Holder agreed to submit the following consultation response to the Planning Committee meeting on 7 October 2009:

“Central Government requires that South Cambridgeshire District Council determines a minimum of 90% of planning applications through delegation to officers.  The Council introduced the Chairman’s Delegation Meeting in an effort to recognise a statutory process but, at the same time, inject an element of local democracy.  It is important to make sure that procedures remain effective, relevant and widely accepted.  My view is that the contribution made by the Chairman’s Delegation Meeting in its present form should be recognised and welcomed, but that, in the interests of transparency, interested parties (applicants, agents, objectors and parish councils) should from now on be invited to attend meetings, as observers only without speaking rights, subject to review in October 2010.  Some amendments to the current Chairman’s Delegation Procedure would be necessary for clarification and an amended procedure should be brought to the November meeting of the Committee. ”