LGA Probity in planning document - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Sorry, I meant planning guarantee, not agreement re the 6 month deadline.

Hello Roger. 

The text says:

"Planning committees are advised to take the following steps before making a decision which differs from the officer recommendation:

I'm not the author, but my reading is that call-over meetings are what would otherwise be called a pre-meeting. Technical issues, changes since minutes were printed, anything else for discussion before the committee begins. These are not one-way, and if there is a difference of opinion in policy interpretation the chair will flag it so when the committee gets to that item the time can be spent on that particular issue. 

And I guess, if and when we reprint it, we should insert the words "where possible". And the bullets should be a numbered list. 

I may be particularly thick on this, but I really do not see any place whatsoever for any sort of pre-meeting, for the whole planning committee, prior to the public meeting and associated debate.  For many, the debate is what's it's all about, when it comes to particularly contentious applications.  Indeed, taken to its logical conclusion, if you've held a committee meeting behind closed doors and thrashed out all of the issues and answered all of the questions, apart from the odd application where's there's still no consensus, what's the point of the public debate at all?

The public already has a pretty jaundiced view of the planning process and how councillors sometimes perform at committee.  To suggest that the public meeting they are attending and where they hope to hear a fulsome debate, that could ultimately see the public view supported, is no more than an exercise of going through the motions, is just likely to be demonstrating to the public that they were right - it's a fix!

Also consider also the purpose of allowing public speakers.  Why would these people bother to come along to express their support of their opposition, if they were aware that what was being recommended by officers had already been rubber stamped at a pre-meeting?

im sorry to keep banging on about this, but I really do believe that the LGA have got this particular  piece of advice very badly wrong and that it needs amending without delay.

The first result returned from a search for "planning call-over meeting" is Spelthorne's guide "Public speaking at planning committee". It recommends that the public arrive in time to hear the call-over. 

So, not a deal done in a smoky room but a public conversation about where the committee would like the focus of the debate to be. 

Although the fact that we're having this debate means that our guide has room for improvement. I'll see what others think. 

Hi Roger,

Glad you enjoyed PIPA, I agree it was a very interesting and good event. 

I was responsible for commissioning this guide, and agree that this bit isn't very clear. In my mind it refers to the pre-meeting that many places have, but it certainly isn't a decision making forum.  I've asked the authors for some c lairifcation. 

But I take your point that this isn't very clear and as written could be construed as 'shady' behaviour. 

We will make it clearer. Thanks for raising it. 

Why not, like with Pre-app meetings, have a section in the publication about pre committee meetings? Pre meetings, like them or not, do seem to be part of 'normal' practice at many councils so include a section about what their purpose is.

In the publication, these meetings only appear to be mentioned in the section about 'decisions which differ from officer rec....' This subconsciously puts the pre-meet into the realms of 'shady-ness' .

If they are normal and have value let's explain them in the Guide and how they affect probity. 

[quote=martin hutchings]

Why not, like with Pre-app meetings, have a section in the publication about pre committee meetings? Pre meetings, like them or not, do seem to be part of 'normal' practice at many councils so include a section about what their purpose is.

In the publication, these meetings only appear to be mentioned in the section about 'decisions which differ from officer rec....' This subconsciously puts the pre-meet into the realms of 'shady-ness' .

If they are normal and have value let's explain them in the Guide and how they affect probity. 

[/quote]

Absolutely agree with the principle of using same criteria as pre-app for pre-committee meetings. Where it can fall down is ensuring that those who attend the pre-committee meetings, must be the same ones making the decision, otherwise it is pointless and will undermine the process and the publics confidence.  That then runs into the issue of availablity of members to attend yet another meeting!

key is the point you make, the document clearly suggests that some form of decision has already been made, how else would you know that the committee was considering going against the officers recommendations?

At the risk of being confrontational, it seems PAS are keeping their heads down on this, so it looks like I'm going to forced to make a direct complaint to the LGA on this,min order to understand how they've arrived at this statement as being an example of good practice..

Hi Roger

I'm not sure how, when 3 members of PAS have contributed here to this discussion, we can be accused of keeping our head down. So yes, your comment does feel a little confrontational. 

I have gone back to the writer to find out a bit more about what was meant here, and am waiting to hear back from them.  We have already agreed with you that the way it is written is not clear, and said that we will sort it out. I am trying to find out a bit more about practices within councils. 

[quote=Alice Lester]

Hi Roger

I'm not sure how, when 3 members of PAS have contributed here to this discussion, we can be accused of keeping our head down. So yes, your comment does feel a little confrontational. 

I have gone back to the writer to find out a bit more about what was meant here, and am waiting to hear back from them.  We have already agreed with you that the way it is written is not clear, and said that we will sort it out. I am trying to find out a bit more about practices within councils. 

[/quote]

Sorry Alice, that's what happens when you read posts out of sequence and sat t in a planning conference!  

I think I'm becoming frustrated by the dancing around a fundermental issue and one that seems to be promoted by this guidance and, despite the suggestion that it will be amaze dead at some point, isn't being addressed in any of the answers so far.  

The mandate for any planning committee is to deal with the novel, contententious and major applications that are submitted.  This suggests that the public will be interested, will expect to have their say and will expect to be offered some insight into how the council and it's planning committee reached its decision, particularly when it is out of step with the public opinion.

Suggesting that planning committee agendas should be treated in exactly the same way as one does for all other areas of council business, misses completely the issue of transparency in the reaching of a decision when it comes to planning.

Specifically, take the example of a very contentious housing development that has created significant local objection, some of it based on material planning considerations and therefore gaining substantial political backing from members of the planning committee.  If the application has only seen daylight with the council offices via pre-app discussions, and not been subject to the public scrutiny, how are you going to address the detailed concerns that could lead to a recommendation against officers advice in the first place?

Unless the guidance as written is changed signicantly, not just clarified as has been suggested, you are still suggesting a path to pre-determination.  It may not start out like that in a particular council, but I bet it ends up like that after several years of use and a couple changes of political control.

In my Council we have a pre-meeting with the Chair and vice-chair. This enables the key issues to be discussed in more detail and to enable any questions they have to be answered. This helps in terms of allowing general memebr questions to be fed through. This I think is general practice.

We do not hold any other meeting once the officer report is published, it is after all the officers report. The running order and what goes to each meeting is down to officers with no member input. There have been accusations in the past the Cllrs have influenced the agenda etc so we keep them well away from this process.

[quote=Andrew Taylor]

In my Council we have a pre-meeting with the Chair and vice-chair. This enables the key issues to be discussed in more detail and to enable any questions they have to be answered. This helps in terms of allowing general memebr questions to be fed through. This I think is general practice.

We do not hold any other meeting once the officer report is published, it is after all the officers report. The running order and what goes to each meeting is down to officers with no member input. There have been accusations in the past the Cllrs have influenced the agenda etc so we keep them well away from this process.

We do exactly the same  at South Holland Andrew and this of course makes sense.  In addition, we also have something called a Chairman's Panel.  The officers seek advice from the CP, where they've already made their determination, but some minor comments, either for and against, have been made and the politicians might want to suggest that more or less weight should be given to these.  This doesn't lead to any decision as such, it just gives officers the option to consider going to the planning committee for confirmation, or for more clarity and detail on what the members' concerns might be.

in respect of pre-applications.  We now have a pre-application steering group, made up of Planning Committee members and ward members, if they are not already on the committee. It could also include portfolio holders with responsibilities for economic development, refuse collections or open spaces, if weren't already involved in some way.

Following a briefing from officers about the policies that might apply, Potential applicants can present their proposals to this group.  Members are told that they should not offer either support or opposition to the proposal, but should rather question, challenge and raise concerns that they are aware of and that could well come forward once any application is submitted.  The idea is to save the delays caused to applicants, by the nasty surprises that can sometimes emerge at committee and can lead to a deferred, or worse still, an unsound decision.