Issue - meetings

Constitution Review: Planning Code of Practice

Meeting: 20/01/2020 - Council (Item 36)

36 Constitution Review: Planning Code of Practice pdf icon PDF 79 KB

This report presents the recommendations of Standards Committee on proposed changes to the Part 5, Section 8 of the Constitution, with the adoption of a new ‘Planning Code of Practice’.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Council received a report presenting the recommendations of the Standards  Committee with regard to the revision of Part 5, Section of 8 of the Constitution and the adoption of a new Planning Code of Practice.

Councillor Liz Frost MOVED the recommendation in the report.

An amendment to the Motion was MOVED by Councillor Eber Kington and SECONDED by Councillor Guy Robbins:

·                     To amend the Planning Code of Practice to remove the guidance note under paragraph 3.7 of Annex 1 to the report, namely that the following wording would be deleted:  “Note to Members: Members should take great care to ensure that they have declared if they have been approached by any party during the ‘declaration of interests’ item.”

Upon being put, this amendment was CARRIED with 22 being in favour, 6 against, 5 abstaining and the Mayor not voting.

Following resolution of the amendment, the substantive motion was debated. The following matter was considered during debate:

a)            Arrangements for public speaking. Council debated the proposed changes to public speaking arrangements for meetings of the Planning Committee. A number of views were expressed, including concerns that the proposed registration period might not be accessible for some interested parties, and that greater flexibility might be required for large applications. The Chairman of the Standards Committee responded to these concerns by highlighting to Council that the proposed arrangements provided a broader registration period than the 1 hour currently available, and increased the number of speakers wishing to speak in objection to an application from 1 to 2.

Following this debate, the substantive motion was put to a vote.

Upon being put, the Motion was LOST with 6 being in favour, 24 against, 3 abstaining and the Mayor not voting.