Agenda item

To consider the adoption of a revised version of the Planning Protocol.

The Committee considered a report seeking approval to adopt a revised version of the Planning Protocol taking account of the lessons learnt in the first year of operation for the existing protocol and the comments made by Members. The purpose of the planning protocol was to provide more detailed guidance on the standards to be followed in relation to planning matters, which supplements the Members Code of Conduct.

Following a workshop to discuss the operation of the Planning Protocol held in October 2015, a key proposal was for the inclusion of speaking rights for ward Members and the Cabinet Member for Planning at pre-application briefing meetings of the Planning Committee. Speaking rights were included at 3 minutes each in the proposed revised protocol. In addition the following additional changes were proposed:

·         The removal of reference to the weekly list of planning applications as this was being phased out as a list, by ward, and could be run from the website at any time.

·         Clarification that  if an application was recommended for refusal a request for referral to Planning Sub-Committee will not be accepted.

·         Clarification that there were no public speaking rights at pre-application briefings to committee.

·         The introduction of the opportunity for Ward Members or Cabinet Members to speak for three minutes at pre-application briefing meetings to Planning sub-committee.

·         Encouraging Ward Members to register their intention to speak at pre-application briefing meetings or at planning sub-committee by midday on the working day prior to the Planning Sub-Committee meetings in order to manage the efficient operation of the Planning Sub-Committee (this cannot be required because of the Committee Procedure rules which allow for any member to speak at the Chair’s discretion).

·         Clarification that proposals should go before the Quality Review Panel prior to presentation at pre-application committee briefing meetings unless scheduling and programming prevents this.

·         Changing references to the Design Review Panel to its replacement the Quality Review Panel.

·         Clarifying that the applicant has a right to reply of the equivalent length of time of the objectors and any objecting ward councillors.

The Chair welcomed the proposal to allow speaking rights for ward Members and the Cabinet Member but cautioned that ward councillors needed to make it clear whether they were objecting to a particular application or not. Officers advised that, under the new protocol,  Members would be asked to state that intention when they registered to speak. Similarly, if Members arrived on the night and requested to speak, they would also be asked to state their intention as to whether they were objecting or not. The Committee welcomed the removal of any ambiguity in that regard.

Cllr Paterson asked for clarification on the purpose of allowing objecting ward councillors to speak at pre application meetings. Officers responded that when the proceedings were reviewed, there was a certain amount of angst as to why ward councillors were invited to attend when they were unable to take part. After reflecting on the concerns raised, officers added that they did not think it was appropriate for ward councillors to sit around a table with the Committee because it was important for the public to understand who was the Committee and who was a ward councillor. It was felt that the most appropriate solution to this issue was to give the ward Member the opportunity to be able to publically state what their views were in relation to a particular scheme. Officers clarified that it did not have to be an objection and could simply be participation or comments on the scheme.

Cllr Paterson further remarked that his concern was that the pre-application meeting could end up pre-empting the Committee meeting. Officers responded that they shared some of those concerns but on reflection decided that it was important to give ward councillors the opportunity to speak.  The Chair commented that she had also a discussion with officers on this issue prior to inclusion in the draft protocol and advocated that having a 3 minute slot to speak was a valuable part of the process in terms of open/transparent decision making and giving Members an opportunity to be involved in the process, giving the developers the chance to hear the views of the local ward councillors. Officers also stated that, going forward, one of the key objectives sought  was to improve the quality of the outcomes that were put in front of the Committee as a decision making body. The pre-application process provided an opportunity for developers to engage with Members on the issues that the Council saw as a priority, at an early stage, to improve the quality of design. The provision would be monitored going forward to observe its effectiveness and the speaking rights could be reviewed if it was subject to abuse.

Officers advised that some form or guidance note for Members on how the pre-application meetings would work, including speaking rights, would be developed. Officers suggested that the Committee may want to review this again in a year’s time.

The Committee expressed concern at the intention to discontinue the weekly list of planning applications as they found it extremely useful in terms of understanding what decisions were due. Officers advised that one of the reasons behind doing away with the list was that it tended to drive behaviour, particularly from the public, to wait for its  circulation before looking at or commenting on applications and this effectively elongated the process. Officers advised that a daily list of applications by ward could be generated on the website.

Officers agreed to run a training or drop-in session for Members to show them how to use the website effectively.

Action: Emma Williamson

The Committee raised concerns that without a reminder of applications in their wards, Members would struggle to keep track with what was happening on a weekly basis.

Officers also agreed to develop a guidance note and accompanying flow chart for Members that outlined how to access upcoming planning applications, which would be  published on the intranet.

Action: Stephen Kelly/Emma Williamson

The Committee requested that, given that most of the issues caused by the weekly list were based around residents and community groups, could a weekly list continue to be developed for councillors. Officers responded that a number of significant changes were being implemented to the Northgate software system and Planning was also scheduled to be included in the My Haringey application in September. Officers agreed to look at whether it would be possible to generate a system of automatic emails or notifications to councillors highlighting when an application was due in their ward. Officers also agreed to look into maintaining the weekly list for councillors in the interim.

Action:  Stephen Kelly/Emma Williamson

Officers commented that the Planning service was undergoing a pilot process to implement a new way of working to improve productivity and reduce the timeframe for making a decision on a planning application. Officers further advised that  part of the reasoning behind discontinuing the weekly list was that it undermined the process and tended to result in delays to the 22 day target to make a decision on a planning application.

The AD Planning agreed to circulate a briefing note via Democratic Services around proposals for continuing  the weekly list for councillors in the short term and the potential for automating notifications on planning applications, prior to the next meeting.

Action: Stephen Kelly/Emma Williamson

Cllr Weston commented that Paragraph 10.6 of the draft planning protocol did not make sense with the tracked changes and officers agreed to review and amend the wording in the report.

Action: Emma Williamson

RESOLVED

1.    That the Regulatory Committee adopt the revised planning protocol;

2.    That the Regulatory Committee requires that the Planning Sub-Committee implement the provisions of the revised planning protocol; and

3.    That the Regulatory Committee authorises the Assistant Director Corporate Governance in consultation with the Assistant Director Planning to make any consequential amendments to the protocol arising out of any changes made to the Council’s constitution or scheme of delegation