To consider the above report.

The Mayor has agreed to this urgent item, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972, to allow the amendments to take place with immediate effect, upon approval.

Members considered changes to the terms of reference for the borough-wide Development Management Panel.

The Chairman confirmed that the item had been the Mayor had agreed to the urgent item, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972, to allow the amendments to take place with immediate effect.

Councillor Targowska explained that Major applications represented the most significant developments across the Borough and merited consideration in public by a Development Management Panel. Development Management Panels were quasi-judicial.  They had powers and were governed by procedures resembling those of a court of law, and were obliged to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions so as to provide the basis of planning decisions taken by the council.  As part of that process Members were advised by planning professionals; Members of the Panels were not expected to be experts in the field of planning.

The Managing Director had tabled an amended recommendation that sought that only those applications falling within the definition of major development, which were recommended for refusal by the Head of Planning, would be automatically considered by the Borough Wide Panel. 

Councillor Jones expressed disappointment that after four months of work by the Constitution Review Working Group only one change to the constitution was being presented. The recommendation was also different to that proposed by the Working Group. An urgent paper and amended recommendation on the evening of the meeting seemed like undue haste given the other recommendations had been put back to June. The Working Group did suggest an increase to 15 members but that the Panel would only consider applications with a significant social, environmental or economic impact. To take away all applications for 10 or more that were recommended for refusal from the area panels went against the Conservative manifesto commitment about involving councillors at all levels in planning decisions. She was against the proposal because it reduced the involvement in decisions affecting the local community. If two applications were heard on the same night for different areas of the borough, one set of residents would have further to travel.

Councillor Dudley commented that the constitution was a 400 page document; the proposals before Council were just one microcosm. The Working Group had done some fantastic work that provided a good foundation, but further work was needed. The other changes would not come in until the boundary changes in 2019 therefore there was time to make revisions and it was important not to rush the process. The reason the proposals were before council was because certain major planning applications Members would have presumed would go to Panel were being refused by officers. The amended recommendation addressed this issue. Of the major developments refused in 2017/18, 7 of the 12 were done so under officer delegation. Member involvement was needed in such decisions to ensure local communities were represented. He had also received representations on this matter by developers.

Councillor Hilton commented that planners fulfilled two roles, firstly they ensured applications reflected the NPPF, BLP and Neighbourhood Plan policies. Importantly they also worked with developers to ensure proposals either reflected local character or with very large developments created a character that was in keeping with the Royal Borough. On four major applications in the south of the Borough currently in the system he had seen the process at work and it was helpful. It was a process of negotiation, developers understood the rules and knowing that in the extreme planners could refuse their application helped to concentrate the mind.  He requested explanation of two issues:

·         What would motivate applicants to be open with planners and consider appropriate change if the delegated authority to refuse were removed?

·         If there was no movement from developers how would the BWDMP manage the risk of applications coming forward which were not as good as they could be? It was not the role of the panel to modify an application it could only approve or refuse.

Councillor Rankin commented that he struggled when he first saw the proposals. Fundamentally planning powers were the council’s powers, delegated to officers through the constitution. The current set up of three area panels was a sensible level for democratic decision. As a Windsor member he could call in an application and residents could then walk to the Guildhall, which was viewed as the Windsor Town Hall, to see local members making the decisions. This was the proper granularity for determining planning applications. When he first saw the report which had a recommendation referring anything over 9 units to the Borough wide panel he had felt it was ill conceived. He was happy with the amendment which reinstituted the three panels. However he queried why in the first recommendation major applications that were considered for refusal would not go to the area panels.

Councillor Werner commented that Members needed to be making the decisions. The call in facility still existed. The Borough wide panel was not the right place for major applications; decisions about Maidenhead should be made by Maidenhead councillors and similarly for other areas of the borough. He suggested the first recommendation be amended to refer such applications to the relevant area panel.

The Monitoring Officer referred Members to Part 2C 14.6 of the constitution which set out that amendments could not introduce a new proposal unrelated to the original motion.

Councillor Dudley suggested that the recommendation be approved at this meeting to ensure Members were able to decide on major planning applications and if necessary, an alternative motion be brought to the next meeting. Councillor Werner accepted this if a motion would be guaranteed at the next meeting. Councillor Dudley agreed.

Councillor Beer commented that the council had previously been castigated because it was only delegating a small percentage of applications; the government had said it would intervene if the council did not meet the 95%.

Councillor Smith suggested that it should be up to the Chairman of the relevant Panel to determine if an application should come to the local Panel.  Councillor Brimacombe commented that he thought Members would have had visibility and nothing would be determined without their knowledge. He was under the impression a Member could call in an application if they so desired. Councillor C Rayner expressed concern that the report had been brought in haste.

Councillor D Wilson commented that he did not understand why the wording could not be changed from borough-wide to area panel in the first recommendation. He had served on planning panels since 1991. They were all quasi-judicial and bound by the same process; it did not matter whether it was a borough wide or area panel.  He was pleased with the amended recommendation. Councillor Dr L Evans questioned whether only bringing applications that were recommended for refusal to the panel would be seen as predetermination.

Councillor Kellaway commented that a Planning Task and Finish Group (TFG) was underway. At the first Constitution Review Working Group he had made the point that in the current constitution major applications could be refused by officers. He had called in one such application the previous month. The TFG was looking to reduce the overall number of panels. As currently proposed this would add to the burden; there should be some discretion. 

Councillor Bateson agreed with the recommendation that applications should go to the Borough wide panel; there was sufficient representation from each area on the panel.

Councillor Bicknell commented that powers were delegated to officers from Members to undertake the workload that would be too time consuming for Panels. However big applications were going through without Members being aware. If the recommendations were agreed this would be stopped immediately. The bigger panel gave better political balance.

Councillor Saunders echoed the concerns about applications not called in or called in late. Members had the right to have applications determined by a Panel. However in the zeal to fix the situation, he believed the recommendations had been incorrectly drafted. Councillor Saunders proposed an amendment to recommendation ii to read:

Applications falling within the definition of major development and called in or falling within the minor or other categories will continue to be reported to the relevant area Development Management Panel;

The meeting adjourned at 10.30pm, and reconvened at 10.38pm.

Councillor Targowska confirmed she accepted the amendment to recommendation ii).

It was recommended by Councillor Targowska, seconded by Councillor Dudley and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That full Councilnotes the report and approves the following amendments to the Council’s Constitution:

i)     Applications falling within the definition of major development which are

a.    recommended for refusal by the Head of Planning AND

b.    have not been called-in for determination for a decision by the relevant Area Development Management Panel

will be determined by the Borough-wide development management Panel. Those major applications that have been called-in will continue to be considered by the relevant Area Development Panel;

ii)    applications falling within the definition of major development which are recommended for approval by the Head of Planning, including those applications which fall within the definition of major development which have been called-in, will continue to be determined by the relevant Area Development Management Panel.

iii)  The membership of the Borough-wide Development Management Panel will increase to 15, political balance and quorum to be adjusted accordingly; and

iv)  Planning Enforcement items will continue to be reported to the relevant Area Development Management Panel unless the Chair authorises the issue of the notice prior to Panel.

*The wording of resolutions i and ii was clarified by the Monitoring Officer subsequent to the meeting. When the draft minutes are considered for approval at the next meeting (June 2018) Members will have the opportunity to consider the revised wording.