Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence has been received from Councillor Latchford.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Latchford, whose substitute was Councillor M Roberts.

To receive any declarations of interest.  Members are advised to consider the extract from the Standard Board Code of Conduct for Members, which forms part of the Declaration of Interest Form at the back of this Agenda.  If a Member declares an interest, they should complete that Form and hand it to the Officer clerking the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the Minutes of the Constitutional Review Working Party meeting held on 25 August 2010, copy attached.

On the proposal of Councillor Mrs Roberts, seconded by Councillor Gregory, the minutes of the meeting held on 25 August 2010 were approved and signed by the Chairman, subject to “applicant” in the last sentence on page 1 being changed to, “objector”.

Report to follow

The matters outlined in the Monitoring Officer’s Report were considered in the following order:

a)  Public Speaking Arrangements at Planning Committee (Annex 2)

Simon Thomas, Planning Applications & Enforcement Manager, outlined the present system used to select a person to speak at Planning Committee, which was on a first come, first served basis from those having objected to the application.  He said that there was no evidence that this system was being abused; for example, by a party hi-jacking a speaking slot to the preclusion of someone genuine.

Under the current system, the Council provided those persons who had made representations on a planning application an opportunity to request to speak.

The Planning Applications & Enforcement Manager pointed out that those who requested to speak subsequent to a slot having been taken were encouraged to consult with the person appointed to speak.  Consequently, their views could be represented at the Planning Committee meeting by the speaker.

The Planning Applications & Enforcement Manager invited the Working Party to consider two optional changes to the system, as outlined in Annex 2:  the first of which would give priority to those who had been written to and invited to make comment as part of the Council’s initial notification process; and the second, to those who had previously made their comments in writing to the Council and where their residential amenity or that of members of their family was likely to be affected.

A discussion ensued, during which reference was made to the ability of a concerned resident to speak to their Ward Councillor, who would then be able to address the Planning Committee under Council Procedure Rule 24.1.

It was AGREED TO RECOMMEND that the status quo remains, subject to a watching brief being kept and any significant problems arising being reported back to the Working Party.

b)  Protocol for the Guidance of Planning Committee Members and Officers (Annex 1)

A Member made reference to the apparent anomaly arising from Paragraphs 11.6 & 11.8, in that the Chairman, who had proposed that the Planning Officer’s recommendation be adopted, could later in the meeting be required to propose something that was contrary to that recommendation.

It was AGREED TO RECOMMEND to the Standards Committee that the revised Protocol be adopted subject to the following further amendments:

1. Paragraph 11.6 – Refusal of Planning Permission against Officer Advice

That the first sentence be amended to read:

“If it is evident to the Chairman in the course of a debate on an application that the Committee is minded to refuse planning permission contrary to the recommendation of the Planning Officer, he/she will withdraw the motion to grant planning permission and seek a proposer and seconder for a motion that the Committee is ‘minded to refuse’ the application.”

2. Paragraph 11.8  -  Grant of Planning Permission against Officer Advice

That, similar to (i) above, the first sentence of the paragraph be amended to read:

“If it is evident to the Chairman in the course of a debate on an application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

The current call-in system of the Council was considered alongside practices used by neighbouring authorities, as set out at Annex 1 to the Democratic Services & Scrutiny Manager’s report.  The differences between the Councils’ processes were noted.

Particular concern was expressed at Thanet’s constitutional requirement that a meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel be convened “within 15 working days of the decision to call-in”, on the basis that, owing to Scrutiny meetings preceding, rather than following, meetings of Cabinet and Council in the calendar cycles, it was expected that extraordinary meetings of the Panel would have to be called for the purpose of considering called-in decisions. 

A question arose as to the merit of changing the Council’s Constitution to facilitate called-in decisions being considered at the next scheduled meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel, rather than within 15 days.  It was noted that, in some cases, it might not be possible for Cabinet to defer implementation of a decision until after the next ordinary meeting of the Panel.  However, consultation could take place with the Leader and Portfolio Holder regarding the timing of the Panel meeting.

Adjournment of Meeting

The meeting was adjourned at 11.00 am to enable Members and Officers to observe a two-minute silence to mark Armistice Day.

The meeting then resumed.

It was further noted that the Council’s processes were generally compliant with the call-in advice published by the Centre for Public Scrutiny (Annex 2 to the report) and the consensus of opinion was that, apart from the issue of having to convene extraordinary meetings of the Scrutiny Panel, the current system appeared to operate satisfactorily with no further changes being required at the present time.

On the proposal of Councillor Harrison, seconded by Councillor Gregory, it was AGREED that the Officers consider, and bring back recommendations to the Working Party, on how the Council’s Constitution should be amended to enable called-in decisions to be reviewed at the next scheduled meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel, subject to permission being sought and granted by the Leader and Portfolio Holder.

It was AGREED:

1. TO RECOMMEND that the Thanet Council procedure rules on the Leader’s Report should be based on the Kent County Council model, as outlined at Annex 2 to the Democratic Services & Scrutiny Manager’s report, as follows:

2. that Officers bring back recommendations regarding constitutional changes to the next meeting of the Working Party.

Chief Executive’s Report

The issue of whether Members’ questions on the Chief Executive’s Report to Council should be time-limited was raised at this stage of the meeting.

It was suggested that questions should be limited to, say,  5 minutes, with the Chairman having discretion at the meeting of Council to grant an extension of, say, up to 10 minutes, where he/she deems that necessary.

It was AGREED that Officers bring back a report to the next meeting of the Working Party, on options for constitutional changes.

Modern Council

On the proposal of Councillor M Roberts, seconded by Councillor Harrison, it was AGREED not to pursue a wider review of “Modern Council” at this time.