Planning Committee Resolution Query - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

This process appears somewhat unusual. My experiance has always been that an amendment to a substantive motion is permissable, but an amendment, which is infact an opposing motion should be rejected. Each council has its own processes. Our own is that the substantive motions are debated and voted on, if there are amendments, the origibal proposer and seconder are asked if they are happy to amend their motion, if so, we move on, else the amendment is voted on. If the substantive motion, lets say for approval is lost, then members are asked for a new motion, lets say refusal, and this is debated and voted on. Keeping the system linear makes it easy to understand what we are debating, and what the motion is that will be voted on. A single motion and vote is usually sufficient. Our processes are held within the constitution, which is available on the website. Phill

Personally I have never understood the need for the recommendation contained in the report to be proposed (and seconded). An opposing motion would therefore need to be proposed (and seconded), and if it was a show of hands would follow. If the opposing motion was carried that would be the decision of the Committee ... if not (or if there were no opposing motion) the recommendation would stand unopposed by default. Mike

Mike: Sounds reasonable doesn't it... but unfortunatly there has be be an affirmative motion and clear resolution, else we are in Judicial Review poo. I'm aware of challenges where the approval motion was lost, and therefore refusal was the obvious result, however it was argued that just because someone votes agaist an application, it doesn't mean they wanted it refused. They could be happy with additional conditions or deferral for more information. Hence a new motion is needed and a vote taken... cumbersome, agreed, but it keeps me out of the High Court. Phill

An affirmative resolution, and opposing resolution, is unnecessary if the Council constitution is properly drafted and committee reports are phrased as a series of resolutions.

if someone is in favour of approval but only subject to condition they should propose an amendment proper to the substantive motion. If they dont logically if they vote against a resolution to approve they are voting to refuse. If 'recommendations' were replaced by 'resolutions' (which by definition are in writing) a chair of a committee could make a motion Which by definition are verbal) that they vote on the resolution. They can even vote against of they wish. If the recommendation to approve is turnedover the chair could then say 'according to the councils constitution the applications is...[either refused or referred upwards or back again if a turnover] In terms of reasons there should always be reasons bguing against therefore a committee, if a turnover those arguing against the motion should be asked by the chair to put forward reasons - preferably in writing before the meeting. If there is not consensus on this matter before the substantive motion the chair should ask for a follow up motion to choose between the reasons.

At East Devon and at South Somerset Councils each motion is taken separately since other options such as a deferral for further information, or a motion for a site visit may be made. Your procedure is a bit rigid and may not be the most helpful approach.

 

Your experience is pretty common where the chair takes speakers in the order they catch his or her eye: in the course of debate a member proposes approval or refusal and waits to see if another member seconds it and a contrary motion can arise simultaneously.  At the end of the debate, if there are two motions it is normal to take the one that was seconded first first (if you see what I mean).  If the first motion is passed there is no need to continue with the second because the Committee has made its decision.

I agree that the failure of a motion to grant does not mean that permission is refused.  I can think of three reasons, one legal and two practical:

1. The Committee has not actually voted on a motion to refuse permission.
2. Strictly speaking, members who voted against granting were voting against doing so on the terms set out and it may be that they would vote to grant if, for example, additional or different conditions were imposed.  Unlikely, I know.
3. There may be abstainers who, whilst not sufficiently motivated to vote to grant permission, might vote against a motion to refuse.  Again, unlikely but who knows?