Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Working Group (copy enclosed).

The Committee received the report of the Director of Strategy and Resources that that considered concluding two further aspects of this scrutiny workplan item for reference to another Committee or Council.

The Chairperson introduced the report and deferred to the Corporate Governance Project Officer to present the detail. He advised that the matters covered in this report had received detailed consideration previously at both Overview and Scrutiny Committee (the Committee) and the Overview and Scrutiny Working Group (the Working Group). He reminded Members that the report stemmed from an individual Member scrutiny request together with a reference from Council to look at more robust ways of decision making and controls over decision making. Due to the Constitutional implications of the recommendation, if approved it would need to go to Council via the Performance, Governance and Audit Committee.

He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 3.2.7 of the report which highlighted the work completed by the Working Group following the deferral of the report for further consideration the last time it came to the Committee.

There being no further discussion the Chairperson put the recommendation to the Committee and it was agreed by assent.

RESOLVED that the Committee endorses the proposals for a ‘constitutional intervention or brake’ by way of a deferment, and also for technical briefings/presentations, both as set out in the report, for reference to the Council via the Performance, Governance and Audit Committee to enable consideration of the constitutional implications.

To consider the report of the Director of Strategy and Resources (copy enclosed).

The Committee received the report of the Director of Strategy and Resources that considered concluding two further aspects of this scrutiny workplan item for reference to another Committee or Council.

The Chairperson introduced the report and deferred to the Corporate Governance Project Officer to present the detail. He advised that the matters covered in this report had received detailed consideration previously at both Overview and Scrutiny Committee (the Committee) and the Overview and Scrutiny Working Group (the Working Group). The first matter involved the introduction of a constitutional intervention or brake, to include in the constitution something that established as a matter of procedure the opportunity of a deferment when consideration of a planning application should Members be minded to overturn the Officers’ recommendation. This intervention/brake would enable the Committee to seek further technical, legal or other constitutional advice on the matter which could then be brought back to another meeting at a later date, or, to avoid delay possibly a special meeting of the relevant Committee for final determination of the matter. It was noted that the preferred option of the Working Group in this instance was deferment.

The second item was the introduction of technical briefings on applications, separately organised briefings for Members of planning committees when dealing with complex issues. This was separate to the Committee meeting itself and Appendix A to the report provided guidelines on the procedure which could be included in the operational protocol for the respective Committee. This was presented to Committee from the Working Group for onward referral to Council via the Performance, Governance and Audi Committee.

In response to issues raised the Corporate Governance Project Officer advised that in terms of the practical application of the constitutional brake at Committee there would need to be a clear mindset on the part of the Committee to overturn the Officers’ recommendation and the brake could be implemented by the Chairperson which would defer a final decision and afford Members the opportunity to receive further key information. The idea for the process had been drawn from similar practices elsewhere however it was difficult to provide clear comparisons given the different structures across individual councils.

It was noted that this workplan item had emanated from a request by a councillor for a review of decisions made and the costs involved and that this idea of a constitutional brake was meant to strengthen the existing guidance in the Constitution on deferment.,

Councillor S White, in attendance at the meeting and with the permission of the Chairman, spoke against the principle of the introduction of this mechanism into the Constitution. 

Following further discussion around the potential cost implications of additional meetings and the process for deferment the Chairperson proposed that a decision be deferred subject to more work being undertaken on the practicalities of a constitutional brake and that the recommendations on the report be brought back to a future meeting once that work was completed. This was seconded by Councillor Spenceley.

The Chairperson put the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 387