Agenda item

Question from Sir Mark Boleat

Following lengthy discussion on three recent planning applications and in anticipation of another lengthy discussion on one item today can I ask the Chairman if he agrees that the time is right for the Committee to have a fundamental review of how it considers major planning applications.  Today, members are being asked to consider 567 pages on a single application.  For most members this is the first they know about this application.  We were invited for a site visit but at notice that was so short as to be impossible for most members.

I have been looking at practice in other London authorities as part of the research I am doing for a paper I am writing on the housing problem.  We are an outlier in respect of how we consider planning applications.  Best practice seems to be that decisions are taken by a panel, typically of around ten members, and that those members are involved in pre-application discussions with the developer.  As I understand it until recently in the City such discussions involved only officers; it is welcome that the Chairman is now involved but in my view that is not enough.

Could I ask the Chairman what is currently the process for advising developers informally of what is or is not likely to be acceptable to the Committee, and who is involved in this process.  And would the Chairman establish a small working group of members to consider whether there is a better way of considering major planning applications, for example  by involving a smaller group of members (I should add not the same members in every case) in major applications from a very early stage.

RESPONSE

The Chairman replied that he was very open to improving processes although he would be nervous about having smaller groups of members considering applications and running the risk of pre-determination. He added that it was important for Members of the Committee to be available to applicants and developers and attend site visits, although only in the presence of officers. The Chairman also reminded Members that the Committee’s terms of reference were set by the Court of Common Council so any changes would require the Court’s approval.

Members of the Committee expressed concern at the suggestion that the current process needed reviewing as the strength of the Committee lay in the knowledge of its Members and the practice of holding a full debate. Also the CoL was a unique area and very different to other local authorities.

A Member commented that it was obvious to the public how much effort went into the decisions made by the Committee, which also enabled a totally transparent process.

Another member suggested that a review would be helpful only if undertaken properly, although caution would need to be taken in relation to site visits and meetings.

Arising from the discussion, the proposal was put to the vote, the result of which was as follows:

11 votes in favour of a review of the existing process

6   votes against

The Chairman stated that while Members had agreed that a full review was unnecessary, there was always scope for improvement which officers should bring to Committee.