Issue - meetings

To consider the findings and recommendations from the Governance Task Group.

RECOMMENDED that:

(i)            That the definition of a Key Decision, set out in Article 14 (14.3.2 – 14.3.4) of the Constitution should remain unchanged.

(ii)          That the membership of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee remain at 15 Members.

(iii)         That the membership of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee be reduced to 12 Members.

(iv)         That Members of the Executive be not allowed to be members or substitutes of the Planning Committee and that the Constitution be amended to reflect this.

(v)          That Members of the Planning Committee be not allowed to participate as Members of the Committee nor vote on any matters that relate to their own Wards and that the Constitution be amended to reflect this.

(vi)         That the role of Ward Members at Planning Committee be changed to strengthen and formalise the role with the ability to make representations on behalf of their Ward constituents, with clarification provided in the Constitution on the following:

a.    Providing any Ward Members with a time-limited opportunity (i.e. 3 minutes per Member with the Chair’s discretion to adjust the time allowed and the frequency of contributions to the meeting) for input on each application considered by the Committee, requesting (but not moving) reasons for refusal* and attendance at site visits.

* A summary of how this would work in practices is:

·         Ward members can request reasons for refusal but not move motions.

·         Reasons for refusal would only be provided to the Member requesting them.

·         The content of those reasons for refusal (requested by ward members) can be put to the Planning Committee during their dedicated speaking slot.

·         The Chairman should maintain an independent role and therefore would not propose reasons for refusal motions on behalf of ward members.

·         Committee members may ask for reasons for refusal to be moved and voted upon, which may include those requested by Ward Members. In the event that no reasons for refusal are moved and the Committee do not agree the Officer Recommendation (e.g. to grant permission) then the matter would stand referred to the next meeting of the Committee for re-consideration.

b.    A reserved seat be provided in the Chamber for use by Ward Members (including Planning Committee Members who are not able to take up their Committee seat if the application relates to their Ward), to advocate on behalf of their Ward on each relevant application.

(vii)       That: (a) the Officer Scheme of Delegation be amended to increase the delegation to the Head of Service with responsibility for Planning to determine applications for commercial works not exceeding 250 sqm; and (b) That it be noted that the principle of referring matters to the Planning Committee, as set out in the Planning Protocol, would apply to a. (above).

(viii)      That the membership of the Planning Committee be broadly representative of the geographic coverage of the Borough and that it be reduced from 19 Members to 15 with a further review 6 months after the first Planning Committee of 2019/20. This review should be carried out  ...  view the full decision text for item 117

Councillor J.E. Durrant, Executive Member for Community Safety and Chair of the Governance Task Group (Constitution), introduced the report as set out.

The Executive was informed that the Task Group had initially been established for a time-limited duration to review certain areas of the Constitution and related governance issues.

It was highlighted that the last in-depth review of the Constitution had taken place in 2014. The Task Group’s review, with input from both Members (cross-party) and Officers, had therefore been timely. It also reflected the fact that from May 2019 the Council would be represented by 6 fewer councillors (45 as opposed to 51) following recommendations from the Local Government Boundary Commission.

Councillor Durrant explained that the Task Group’s report provided recommendations on the following matters:

-       Key decisions;

-       Committee sizes, including a range of related matters, especially in relation to the Planning Committee;

-       The role of the Employment Committee and Procedure Rules concerning Officer Employment; and

-       Options for keeping the Constitution and related governance matters under review. 

It was highlighted that in addition to receiving evidence from Members and Officers the Task Group had considered a range of documentary and other material including: Information from the Council’s Constitution; Comparative data from Surrey Districts and CIPFA’s Nearest Neighbours; Information from Knowles, a well-known manual of law and practice for Local Authority Meetings; and Options and modelling information for the future allocation of line Committee seats. It was noted that the findings from these activities had helped to inform recommendations set out in the report presented.

In response to questions, it was explained that the Task Group had deliberated long and hard over various matters associated with Planning Committee size, including options for decoupling the perceived link between the number of Wards on the Council and the seats on the Committee in order to demonstrate separation of responsibilities. It was noted much of this debate focused on how to remove allegations of perceived bias and predetermination. With this in mind, it was explained that the Task Group had put forward a stronger, more formalised and visible role for Ward Members debating applications at the Committee in their Ward.

Councillor Durrant concluded by highlighting that due to the tight reporting schedule some areas of work had not been progressed as planned. However, subject to relevant recommendations being approved, it was hoped that the work streams, set out in Annex 2 to the report presented, would be prioritised and taken forward during 2019/20.

The Leader of the Council thanked the Members of the Task Group, including Councillor N.D. Harrison whose name had been omitted in error from the covering report, and supporting Members and Officers for their work in conducting the review.                    

RECOMMENDED:

(i)            That the definition of a Key Decision, set out in Article 14 (14.3.2 – 14.3.4) of the Constitution should remain unchanged.

(ii)          That the membership of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee remain at 15 Members.

(iii)         That the membership of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117