Planning Committee Members - Possible Conflict of Interest? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

The LGA guide "probity in planning" is your friend. I cant post links today, but a quick search should turn it up. If Ive understood your question, I dont think that a "conflict of interest" occurs because a councillor is involved both at the strategic allocation and then subsequent planning application stages. The advice to councillors should be to get as involved as they can - without them our plans are useless. The LGA guide should give them confidence and certainty they need to engage with a clear conscience.

Unfortunately the Probity in Planning guidance seems to have the effect of scaring members away rather than giving them the confidence to become involved. As chairman of the development control committee and portfolio holder for Sustainable Development for the last 4 years, I have found it relatively straightforward to navigate the course between the two. I have also had to contend with my ward being the single largest area of current and future housing development proposals in my district. Part of my role has involved encouraging a much greater use of our Local Development Framework Working Party as a sounding board for potential development proposals, with many members of the WP also being members of the DC committee. None of the members have expressed concerns about conflicts of interest because it has been made clear that their role on the WP is to raise concerns and issues that might echo those of the public when an application becomes public, not to express a preference for the development being proposed. I know the issue of land allocation is somewhat different and if a member feels that they must actively promote an area for future development then there is no way around that, they have very obviously made their minds up and will indeed be seen as predetermined in their views. However, such members must be few and far between and any that are so outspoken and committed to a particular piece of development or land use should probably not be involved in the process in the first place. Members should be guided in how to be advocates for their taxpayers, rather than campaigners for a particular cause. It most cases, ensuring that they de-personalise the discussions by referring to the concerns that the public or residents may or may not have, should be enough for them to avoid accusations of pre-determination. If your CS process is actually organised in a way that requires members to cast a vote on a particular piece of land allocation, thereby requiring a member to lay his or her cards on the table so to speak, then perhaps you should think about changing that process to one that seeks a consensus of opinion from the group as a whole rather than any specific voting. Ultimately, any piece of land use will be debated through the consultation process and tested through the LDF (soon to be Local Plans again under a Tory Government? who knows??) Inquiry process, so individual member influence must be very limited at best. If however the whole process changes with a change of government and localism becomes a reality, with the good ol' boy network taking over the development control process like it did in the good old, bad old days, then you may well have to think again!

Thanks for your helpful responses! Harriet

Harriet, Just to complete my comments. We held a DC workshop on Tues night, offering members the opportunity to raise issues with officers and myself as chairman of the committee. As well as all the normal stuff, what did come out of it that had not occured to me before, was the need for members to be well versed in 'their' Local Plan / LDF policies. If they have a good understanding of the background to the officers decisions, then they tend to make far better decisions themselves, obvious I know, but not always the case and it does not happen by accident, it needs to be delivered to members in a structured and understandable package. Expecting them to sit down a read the Local Plan in their own time is not the way! More importantly, if they have some degree of understanding or buy-in to use the jargon, they tend to make more balanced comments about planning apps rather than shooting from the hip. Our planning manager, a straight talking, but mild mannered Geordie, made a very good observation during his presentation. Members sometimes tie themselves in knots by not separating principle from detail. He also gave them a very simple guide to the policy hierarchy and structure, something a number of them clearly did not appreciate until that point! Put simply, if members think about the principle first and then consider the detail, they can clarify the issues in their own minds before speaking and taking a scatter gun approach to the points they wish to make. Is an application acceptable in principle, normally seen as being in line with the council's policies. If the answer is yes, then is it the detailes you are concerned about and can these be overcome using conditions, s106 etc. Mixing the two areas together and not clarifying exactly what the areas of concern are in a clear and unambiguous manner, can prolong the debate and lead to a less than satisfactory conclusion when it comes to the vote. It then falls to the officers to make sense of what the members were trying to say. The chairman obvious plays a crucial role in steering a course through the debate and I like to think that the vast majority of our decisions are based on members being comfortable with how they got to their decision. However, the comments made by our manager has helped me identify a better way of putting issues across to members during discussions on major or complex applications. In summary, the more confident members are about the policies that you have in place the more likely they are to offer reasoned and well informed comment, make sound decisions and avoid putting their foot in it! Sorry, this was supposed to be a brief note to complete my comments! Hopes it helps.

Roger, Thanks for sharing your insight. Really good points. Really curious to hear what you think it is about the LGA guide that "seems to have the effect of scaring members away"??? John.

John, probably didn't put that very well. I don't think it's the guide itself so much as the fact that the guidence exists and it is an element of the annual training. As such, it would seem that members tend to see it as a constraint to involvement, rather than a means of helping them to do so safely. The old adage, if in doubt stay out, is often used as a reason (excuse?) to avoid becoming involved in discussions with applicants, or even with the officers on occasion. Add to that, the probity training is often delivered by the monitoring officer or in some councils by one of the legal team and you begin to see how members might view it as a clear direction to steer clear, or suffer the consequences at a later point in the process. I'm not suggesting that it is anybody's fault as such, but it must be accepted that most members do not read thoroughly documentation of this sort and will often take a steer from those they see as more experienced. Therefore, if that individual has taken the ultra-cautious approach, or has themselves mis-understood the message and intention of the training, then you have a continuation of the myths surrounding pre-application discussions etc. I believe that experienced members who are confident in their understanding of the process and know how to become involved without crossing the line have a crucial role to play during the formal training process, but they are seldom called upon to do so by the officers. It may be that role profiles for PF holders and committee chairs, should contain a 'requirement' that they assist officers in the process of member development. It is after all a fact that officers can only offer the theory, it is only the members themsleves who have the practical experience of being involved in talking to applicants.

At South Somerset we're currently looking forward with some relish to the return to a proper "community leadership" role, as this will result in better spatial planning, more informed decisions, community prioritised delivery, less damaging conflict en-route and fewer appeals. Apart from that I'm ambivalent ... :-) I think it fair to point out that the original concern addressed through the probity guidance (and the Member's Code of Conduct) was corruption of the planning process, not pre-determination. The latter is specifically procedural and best addressed through training and chairmanship. There is a very good paper which deals with Case Law and prior decisions at http://www.standardsforengland.gov.uk/News/Newsletters/TheBulletin/Issue46/BiasPredeterminationandtheCode/ Apparent pre-determination is always an issue, I have already seen applications where my portfolio clashes in a way which prevents my participation (beyond making representations and answering questions). I would have no worries about the case you're suggesting. Indeed, as all our members sit on their local planning committee and also set policy, we would have extreme worries otherwise.