Agenda item

To consider introducing an Adjourned Decision Protocol that would be followed if the Planning Committee is minded to approve or refuse a major or significant planning application contrary to the advice of officers.

The Civic Affairs Committee REFUSED to recommend to Council that it amends the Constitution to allow the introduction of an Adjourned Decision Protocol.

The Interim Head of Development Management presented the report which asked the committee to consider the introduction of a new protocol to be followed if the Planning Committee was minded to approve or refuse a major or significant planning application, contrary to the advice of officers.

A number of concerns about this were raised by committee members:

·         It was felt that this protocol may prevent the Planning Committee from acting independently.

·         It was advised that more clarity may be needed regarding the grounds for the Planning Committee making a decision that was contrary to the advice of officers, rather than this protocol being introduced.

·         Some members felt that proposing this protocol was a vote of no confidence in the Planning Committee and that it would allow officers to put pressure on the Planning Committee. In response to this, the Interim Development Manager assured members that the intention of this protocol was to support rather than undermine the Planning Committee. Members were informed that this protocol was in place in Oxford, Cambridge City, Haringey and other councils.

·         Some members felt that this proposal should have been presented to Planning Committee members before it was presented to the Civic Affairs Committee. In response to this, members were informed that this had been discussed with the Planning Portfolio Holder and Planning Committee Chairman.

·         It was felt that the Planning Committee and planning process were respected within communities and that the wrong message would be given by straying away from this process and introducing this protocol.

·         Concern was raised that should the protocol be implemented, it would delay the planning process and lead to appeals on non-determination, which would lead to the Council incurring costs. In response to this concern, the Interim Development Manager informed the committee that applicants were normally willing to defer to a later Planning Committee meeting and give the Council an extension of time rather than go to appeal. The appeal process took months, whereas an extension of time would normally just be a month until the next Planning Committee meeting.

Further information was requested. In response to this, the committee was informed that:

o    The number of planning applications that this protocol was likely to affect depended on the nature of the applications that went to Planning Committee and the decisions taken. Officers advised that the protocol would only be implemented if it was felt necessary and it was expected that this would only be occasionally.

o   The protocol would apply to major applications, as defined by planning legislation, being applications of ten or more houses.

o   Regarding the cost to the Council of planning appeals, members were informed that approximately £50,000 had recently been awarded against the Council from one appeal due to reasons for refusal that could not be supported.

It was pointed out that the Planning Committee already had the power to defer decisions when adequate information was not available.

The Interim Development Manager informed the committee that the aim of the protocol was to enable the Planning Committee to make its decision as robust as possible.

Members raised concern that not enough information had been provided to them regarding how the protocol worked in other councils of a similar nature to South Cambridgeshire District Council.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised the committee that this protocol was being proposed to protect the Council. He advised that a decision be deferred to a future Civic Affairs Committee, to allow officers to provide further information and consult with the Planning Committee.

Councillor Ray Manning proposed the decision on this protocol be deferred. Councillor Peter Topping seconded this motion. A vote was taken with four members voting in favour of the motion and seven voting against. The motion was therefore not passed and the committee agreed that the decision would not be deferred.

Councillor Deborah Roberts proposed the refusal of this protocol. Councillor Bridget Smith seconded the motion. A vote was taken, with nine members supporting the motion for refusal, one voting against the motion and two members abstaining. The motion was passed.

The Civic Affairs Committee therefore REFUSED to recommend to Council that it amended the Constitution to allow the introduction of an Adjourned Decision Protocol.