Issue - meetings

To consider the report by the Monitoring Officer (copy enclosed).

The Committee received a Motion (as set out below) from Councillor A S Fluker, which in accordance with Procedure Rule 4 had been referred to this Committee by the Council at its meeting on 12 May 2022. 

Motion:

With regards to openness, transparency, and public interest the Council writes to the Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State, Mr Terrence Kemmann-Lane JP DipTP FRTPI MCMI, asking him to evidence his findings of ‘substantive’ ‘unreasonable behaviour’ and pre-determination by ‘elected members’, and that the Council appoints an Independent Person to conduct a review of the decision notice and report their findings to Council.”

Consideration was also given to a report of the Monitoring Officer providing detail to assist the Committee make a recommendation to the Council on any action that should be taken in response to the motion submitted by Councillor A S Fluker.

It was noted that the Planning application referred to by Councillor Fluker in his pre-amble to the Motion had been considered by the South Eastern Area Planning Committee (17 February 2021) and then due to the possibility of legal challenge re-determined by the District Planning Committee on 9 June 2021.  The Minutes of the District Planning Committee were attached as Appendix 1 to the report.  Following the re-determination, a written representations appeal took place and a copy of the Inspectors decision, granting the application was attached at Appendix 2 to the report.  The costs decision, in which full costs of the applicant was awarded was attached as Appendix 3.

In response to a question, the Monitoring Officer clarified that this Motion had been referred from the Council without debate.  The role of the Committee was to make a recommendation to the Council and once that had been done the recommendation would be debated by the Council.

The Monitoring Officer took Members through his report and the two appendices, providing an assessment of the decision letter from the Planning Inspectorate (appended to the report).  He explained how the Motion referred to pre-determination and informed Members he felt it was clear that the Planning Inspector was only making his decision on unreasonable conduct and not pre-determination.  Therefore, Members were advised that they should only be looking at the issue of unreasonable conduct.  At this point the Monitoring Officer went through the options available to the Committee and as set out in the report.

Councillor Fluker disagreed with the view of the Monitoring Officer regarding pre-determination, highlighting how the Planning Inspector had referred to this statement in his decision notice.  He referred to a number of documents which he had obtained and advised that he was happy to share them with the Committee.  Councillor Fluker went through the information contained and appended to the report presenting his views and also referred to the content of the other documents he had obtained. 

Councillor Fluker proposed that the Committee agree recommendation (ii) as set out in the report on the grounds that recommendation (i) was insular to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117