To consider the above report

Members considered an update on the procedures for Development Management Panels.

 

Councillor Coppinger referred Members to the decision taken on 26 May 2020 to create a single Development Management Panel to allow virtual meetings to take place as part of the council’s response to COVID-19. At the time a 6 month review was agreed, with a Working Group being set up. Following a proposal by a Member of the Opposition at the May meeting, he had agreed an amendment to increase the number of Members on the Panel. Unfortunately, despite attempts, the Working Group had not met, for which he apologised to both Members and parishes. Whist there was a strong chance of emerging from the crisis before the summer, the country was in a worse state in terms of infections.

 

Councillor Coppinger explained that the Panel had met on six occasions, with a seventh meeting scheduled for the following day. It had considered 22 applications; all but three had been in line with officer recommendations. There had been a real improvement in the discussions between Members and Officers before the meetings, meaning a number of issues had been resolved. In terms of public participation, as with all meetings, there had been a massive increase in public attendance. Parish representatives and the public had been able to address the Panel as usual and many had commented that they could now clearly see the presentations. The October 2020 meeting had over 1000 views; this was democracy in action. The only real issue was caused by a misunderstanding by the public and other organisations of the role of Panel Members. Councillors were appointed to make decisions based on national and local planning law; they were not appointed to represent their ward. The notification process to parishes and others and opportunities to speak were the same as before. Excluding Slough and Reading, the borough was the smallest Berkshire authority in area. Only one, West Berkshire, had two Panels before the COVID-19 crisis, but it was 3.5 times the size of the borough. Councillor Coppinger asked ‘Should the single panel carry on indefinitely?’ His answer was no, a review was needed and the Working Group must meet long before that date.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that at the May meeting Members had been told the most important safeguard on moving to one panel was that it was time limited and had to finish in December 2020. There was a promise to set up a Working Group in September, but Members were now told this had not been possible. He pointed out that it had been possible to convene six Panel meetings though. Councillor Reynolds had undertaken some research and had struggled to find anyone who had been asked to be a member of the Working Group. His colleagues had predicted the intention never to bring back separate panels. He hoped this was not the case. Some meetings had run to 10pm or 11pm and no one could make good decisions at such a late hour.

 

Councillor Tisi highlighted that the report talked of the need for robust and efficient virtual meetings and suggested that having only one panel was the only way to achieve this. There was nothing efficient about meetings that went on from 6.15pm to 11pm, plus a technical briefing in advance. With the changes to call-ins the panel was seeing a lot more major developments requiring longer discussion. As each agenda included items for Windsor, Maidenhead and the rest of the borough, increasingly longer meetings were taking place. The council was prioritising efficiency over people. The increase in public participation was welcome but it was utterly unreasonable to expect them to sit through four hours of discussion before being able to make their representations. Officers would have done a full day’s work before the meeting even started. As Members had to be present for the full debate, it was not possible to slip away. Councillor Tisi suggested maintaining one Chairman for shorter meetings, or two Chairmen splitting the allowance paid for the role. For officers the same number of reports would be needed but the workload was spread out. The report said there were no inequality issues however one Member of the Panel relied on hearing aids. He had said repeatedly that meetings over four hours drained the batteries. Councillor Tisi welcomed a proper review based on feedback from all those involved.

 

Councillor Hunt was pleased that the Lead Member had included the need for a Working Group; it would be helpful for the council to hear the views from parishes. It had been mentioned that there was a misunderstanding of the role of Panel Members by residents and parish councils, but they were fully aware of the politics behind this and that the Panel Members had to take into account planning policy. However at a recent Panel, they were very alarmed that an important issue was raised and wrongly stated by an officer. However, there had been no recourse for them to respond. This was why it was important to have someone who knew the area on the Panel. The issue at the recent meeting had been raised with the Head of Planning; no response had yet been received.

 

Councillor Knowles confirmed that long meetings were an issue for him as his hearing aids could only hold so many charges. During a day he could spend 14 hours in virtual meetings; it was not just officers that had full time jobs. He understood that the events in September/October with SERCO were probably a distraction in terms of getting the Working Group going. Some parishes did receive an email asking them what they thought; this seemed a bit strange in isolation. Localism was important: It was the reason Members were not invited to sit on Bracknell’s panel meetings. Local knowledge was an important thing. The balance of the way the panels were formed previously was good. Although Members were not there to represent their wards they had a vested interest because it was around them. The length of meetings was arduous. There had been a technical argument to move to one panel to make the technical workload easier. This argument was rewinding as most people were now comfortable in the virtual environment. The officers produced plans for their geographic area anyway. Some of the more complex meetings meant a large number of officers were present. He had understood the move to the single panel and why the Working Group had not been able to meet but he was uncomfortable with a further six months before a review. The Working Group could be set up after a return to two panels.

 

Councillor Brar commented that parish councils had only received the email a couple of days ago so had not had time to respond to the paper. Officers were obviously finding it hard as she had been challenged by officers to withdraw her call-ins. She questioned whether Panel Members were visiting other areas and if not, how could they make valid decisions. She was disappointed that the Working Group had not been set up. 

 

Councillor Davey commented that there were two sides to every coin. Members were not there to represent their ward specifically but planning law was there to be interpreted. By definition Members would be more interested in applications within their ward because residents would be knocking on their door and it was important to listen to residents.  Councillor Davey explained that for the Aldi application had had chosen not to be on the Panel so he could represent his ward. He had learned a great deal from Councillor Hilton; he respected his independence and focus on detail. Panels were better with a mix of Members but a strength on local issues.

 

Councillor Rayner commented that when a single panel had first been agreed, it was not thought that COVID-19 would be around for so long. It was appropriate for a single panel to remain until the situation changed, alongside the Working Group review.

 

Councillor Hill commented that he struggled to support the proposal as the Working Group had not considered the situation.  He believed there should be two panels. All were so used to the technology that the meetings could be pulled off with ease. He suggested that if a large agenda was anticipated, the applications be split over two meetings. Better knowledge of a local area was important.

 

Councillor Singh commented that he had received an email from a White Waltham parish councillor who was strongly against the proposals for a number of reasons. As part of the constitution, Members needed to listen to parishes. If local knowledge and skill was lost, mistakes could be made on big planning decisions.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that councillors everywhere liked to be involved in planning. Under the current circumstances it was important to stay with a system that worked. Once the Working Group was set up, it should consider other changes that came in with the formation of a single panel including the system of delegation.

 

Councillor Del Campo commented that it was not clear why it had not been possible to convene the Working Group.

 

Councillor Johnson commented that a lot of valid points had been raised. The issues would be reflected upon, particularly in terms of the Member meetings and balancing out the agenda whilst also getting business transacted. As a former Panel Member he recalled a number of late night finishes even when just considering business for Maidenhead. Agenda management was key.

 

Councillor Walters commented that local knowledge was very important and was best served by two panels. One panel was very unpopular and it took too long, leading to unsatisfactory decisions. He would vote for the 6 month continuation, but purely because of the virus.  It was human nature to be more interested in your own area that you knew so well. Site visits were very important.

 

Councillor Sharpe commented that he did not think it was an ideal situation and it was not popular with people in the area. He suggested getting the working Group set up but then not wait for 6 months to undertake the review. He suggested a review at the end of March when hopefully the COVID-19 situation would have improved.

 

Councillor Baldwin agreed with Councillor Sharpe’s comments. The Working Group should have been working 6 months ago and it was unconscionable that it had done zero. The excuses it could not be constituted were farcical given that the very panel it was meant to be considering had met six times and would be for a seventh time the next day. He endorsed Councillor Sharpe’s comments and called upon the Lead Member to make sure the Working Group was properly constituted and up and running, from the following day.

 

Councillor Wisdom Da Costa commented that if the proposal for a three month review was moved as an amendment, he would second it.

 

Councillor Hill stated that he would be happy to propose the amendment, to change recommendation ii to read:

 

ii)            Agrees a further update report and review to be presented to Full Council in March 2021.

 

Councillor Wisdom Da Costa seconded the amendment.

 

Members noted that there was no full Council meeting scheduled for March 2021, the next meeting was April 2021.

 

Councillor Hill therefore proposed the following amendment:

 

ii)            Agrees a further update report and review to be presented to Full Council in February 2021.

 

Councillor Wisdom Da Costa seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor Coppinger stated that he did not accept the amendment as it would not be possible to meet this timeline.

 

Councillor Hill therefore proposed the following amendment:

 

ii)            Agrees a further update report and review to be presented to Full Council in April 2021.

 

Councillor Wisdom Da Costa seconded the amendment.

 

Councillor Coppinger stated that he did not accept the amendment.

 

Members debated the amendment.

 

Councillor Price asked for clarification that whether or not the amendment was approved, the Working Group would take place.

 

Councillor Coppinger explained that in his closing statement he had intended to apologise yet again that the Working Group had not been set up, and say that it would be started as soon as possible.

 

Councillor Cannon commented that some Members were requesting a review by a certain date prior to June 2021. Others were saying the decision should be to revert back to two meetings before a review. He was unable to support the amendment as he felt that it was setting a timeline for Member convenience rather than the asking officers and the Lead Member for a suitable timeline for a report to be put together. There was some inconsistency in the debate.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that he did not see the value of the amendment. The report suggested a review in six months’ time. Two months was a nonsense; now Members were debating four months. He failed to see the difference with the proposal in the report. He wished to highlight the importance of giving due consideration during the process rather than taking a decision in haste. The current process was working remarkably well.

 

Councillor Walters stated that he could not support the amendment; it should be left to the Lead Member to decide the date.

 

Councillor Knowles commented that people were just trying to stop any drift in the Working Group being set up. He did not enjoy the meetings the way things were but he would like a mechanism to ensure the Working Group moved forward.

 

Councillor Carole Da Costa commented that nothing would necessarily be decided in two or four months but just that it should be reviewed, so it did not wander on and in six months the council found itself in the same position as today.

 

Councillor Carroll agreed with Councillor Walters’ comments.

 

Councillor Taylor agreed with Councillor Knowles. Her concern was that the Working Group would be delayed in set up, therefore she asked the Lead Member to put a time frame on the set up of the Working Group.

 

Councillor Baldwin commented that, whether it happened the following week, or the month after, or the month after that, it was already six months behind. The Working Group was promised on 26 May. It had not met and to the best of his knowledge nobody had been approached to be on the Working Group. He certainly had not received any information, neither had any of his group. It was clear to him that when the lead councillor spoke about it on 26 May he had, as he had tonight, absolutely no intention of ever initiating it.

 

Councillor Luxton commented that the debate had covered all the issues and she suggested moving to the vote.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that Members had forgotten that the planning team had been absolutely focussed on the Local Plan and it did not surprise him that the proposal had taken second place.

 

Councillor Wisdom Da Costa commented that residents were not happy with the way things were moving forward. It was becoming onerous to put everything into one panel and closure on the issue was needed.

 

Councillor Coppinger commented that he had never before been called a liar by a fellow councillor. He would not say any more until the return to the full debate.

 

Councillor Hill explained that he had been trying to be helpful in proposing the amendment. The public wanted a return to two panels. The council moved to one panel incredibly quickly for a good reason. He believed a return to two panels could be instigated very quickly.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the motion fell.

 

Members returned to debate the original motion

 

Councillor Haseler explained he had chaired the single panel since its formation. It had met on six occasions and dealt with 22 applications. The Panel operated effectively with Members adapting to the virtual meeting environment very well. He thanked Members for their efforts and perseverance. All meetings had been streamed live on YouTube, making them more accessible to local communities. The single virtual panel had been subject to criticism. The main issue being that decisions were being made by Members from wards across the borough, with the perception that they did not possess sufficient local knowledge to make sound decisions. This concern was unsubstantiated. The Panel’s role was to make defensible planning decisions based on valid planning reasons in accordance with planning policy and development plans, not to please people. Councillor Haseler did not believe Members had been unable to make sound decisions on applications in other wards. Any such claim was unwarranted and derogatory. Ward Members were able to address the Panel, along with Parish Councillors, objectors and supporters. This gave the Panel a broad spectrum of views to consider alongside the officer report and site visits. Decisions made by the panel would be scrutinised and could be subject to appeal or judicial review. Any such appeal would be decided by an Inspector or judge with likely far less local knowledge than Members of the Panel. Sadly COVID-19 was likely to be around for a while and therefore it would be some time before face to face meetings in the Council Chamber were possible. He could not see any justifiable reason at the current time to change the existing format.

 

Councillor Coppinger concluded by highlighting that he had already apologised that the Working Group had not met. He promised that the first meeting would be held at the end of January. It would take a number of meetings to complete the review. Officers were supportive of this proposal. He commented that when Members wanted to call in absolutely everything, he felt that officers had the right to ensure sound planning reasons were given for call-ins.  Planning was a quasi-judicial role. If planning law was not followed appeals were made and the council could lose, which wasted everybody’s time.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Coppinger, seconded by Councillor Haseler, and:

 

RESOLVED: That full Councilnotes the report and:

 

i)          Agrees to retain the amendments to the constitution as previously approved on 26 May 2020.

ii)         Agrees a further update report and review to be presented to Full Council in June 2021.