Agenda Item 3
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Standards Committee held on 9 September
2014 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at
2.00pm.
Members present:
1.
District
Councillors:
Mr B Hannah
Mr P Moore
Miss B Palmer
Mrs H Cox (Chairman)
Mr P Williams
Co-opted
Members:
Mr G Allen
Mr A Bullen
Mr H Gupta
Mrs M Evans
Mr A Nash
Officers in
Attendance:
The Democratic Services Team Leader
The Democratic Services Officer (LH)
The Monitoring Officer
The Head of Planning
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies received from Mr R Barr, Mr R Stevens and Mrs A Shirley
2.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
3.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Standards Committee held on 5 August
2014 were approved as a correct record, subject to some amendments and
signed by the Chairman.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
Standards Committee
1
09 September 2014
6.
PARISH AND DISTRICT MEMBERS’ REGISTER OF INTERESTS AND
OFFICER REGISTER OF GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY
None
7.
PARISH COUNCILS AND STANDARDS: MOVING FORWARD.
The Chairman started by saying that she had visited Weybourne Parish
Council which had been a full meeting and that the Council had shifted the
agenda to accommodate the visit which she thought indicated great interest in
what the visit involved.
The Chairman went on to say that the parish council were very disgruntled
around issues of planning and that the Chair of the Weybourne had gone on to
say that the council felt „impotent‟ regarding planning issues.
The Chairman then introduced the Head of Planning, Nicola Baker. The
Chairman explained that complaints seemed to stem from planning issues –
that they were personal and about where people lived and that parish councils
have asked to understand more about how planning worked.
Referring to the Weybourne meeting, Mr P Moore said that the atmosphere
changed completely when the issue of planning was raised. The parish council
took the view that the Development Committee paid no attention to what the
parish council said. Mr P Moore added that the parish council could not be
persuaded otherwise and believed that the planning officer named on the case
“makes all the decisions”. Mr P Moore asked the committee how these issues
could be overcome and how parish councils could be educated into
understanding that the council and committee worked within planning
legislation.
The Chairman said that many complaints to the Standards Committee seemed
to stem from planning issues and that in the interest of better relationships the
committee needed to address this. She suggested that the Planning service
liaised with parish councils to help their understanding and to ensure that future
complaints were either non-existent or at least less aggressive.
Mr P Moore agreed with the Chairman‟s thoughts and commented that there
was a gap in knowledge.
Mr G Allen said that Ingworth Parish Council were on the verge of closing and
he believed that this was due to being constantly ignored with regards to
planning.
There was discussion over the process of objections and the information going
into the press – which gave strength to any appeal.
Mr G Allen commented that it was a rampant issue and that parish councils
don‟t believe Members about planning issues.
The Chairman added that the Localism Act encouraged involvement in local
decisions at parish level.
Standards Committee
2
09 September 2014
Mr P Williams noted that the parish clerks needed training and not the parish
councillors themselves. He explained that the parish clerks were in an advisory
position – advising the parish council on what could be done.
Mr P Williams added that the press reporting of planning issues could not be
controlled and that if the press were receiving information it should be from one
source.
Mr P Williams went on to say that he had often experienced the parish council
asking him questions on an application that he had not received information
about.
Mr A Bullen questioned what weight was given to policy and what weight to the
building itself – and were environmental issues, ethical issues, concerns with
building regulations taken into account.
Mr A Nash asked how the Head of Planning viewed comments coming from
Members and the parish councils. In terms of weight and recommendation and
whether, they were given equal consideration.
Mrs M Evans asked the Head of Planning what engagement the planning
department had with parish and town councils.
Mr H Gupta commented that the visits to parish councils had been helpful but
agreed that communication was a problem that needed to be addressed.
The Head of Planning agreed that there was a lack of engagement and a lack
of knowledge on the part of parish and town councils and added that responses
from the planning service regarding decisions hadn‟t always been fed back to
the parish councils.
The Head of Planning went on to say that these issues had been addressed in
the department‟s action plan – to establish training and a forum – to explain
what material planning considerations were and how they affected planning
applications. She accepted that there had been a breakdown in
communications.
The Head of Planning explained that there was a policy framework containing a
range of policies including issues around encouraging innovative design and
around protecting character and that to some extent there was a judgement
requirement on how much weight was given to each issue. She expanded on
this by adding that moral, religious, competition issues or impact on sale value
of neighbouring properties were not considered and that this had been decided
through planning law.
In response to query from Mr G Allen regarding the role of the Development
Committee, the Head of Planning said that the committee worked in
conjunction with the planning department and that the planning officers were
there to provide professional advice but that it was legitimate for the
Development Committee to have another viewpoint.
The Head of Planning addressed the press issue by stating that the department
was required to publish their recommendations. She added that unlike building
regulations which were very technical, planning was about judgements and
competing demands.
Standards Committee
3
09 September 2014
Mr G Allen compared the Development Committee to a jury in that common
sense was used. He questioned whether one days training for committee
members was sufficient.
Mr H Gupta commented that the Council needed the expertise of the planning
officers. The issue was how the complaints were addressed.
Mr A Bullen asked the Head of Planning what percentage of times had the
Members gone against the advice of the planning department.
The Head of Planning answered that it was a small percentage of decisions
made by the committee and that approximately 90% of applications were dealt
with through delegation.
The Head of Planning also stated that during a „live‟ application, the planning
department did not speak to the press but that the Council was required by law
to publish committee papers five days before a meeting and that the papers
were public documents and the press were quoting these. This issue was
outside of the planning department‟s control.
Mr P Moore said that it was because of the high number of delegated decisions
that parish councils believed that planning officers had so much influence over
applications.
Mr P Moore added that the Development Committee received a good service
from the planning department – but that they didn‟t have to agree with them all
the time
Mr H Gupta suggested a flow chart would be a useful way of explaining the
planning process to parish councils.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that there was a flowchart
available and that she would circulate it.
Mr P Williams said that he believed that the Monitoring Officer had recently
sent an e-mail to Development Committee members warning against
disagreeing with the decisions made by the planning officers.
Mr P Moore commented that this related to the case of an industrial building
that was proposed to be demolished and replaced with housing – the planning
department had recommended refusing planning permission, but that the
planning committee had unanimously wanted to approve the application.
The Head of Planning confirmed this.
Mr G Allen was of the opinion that the issues stemmed from a breakdown in
communications. Mr G Allen then went on to add that the parish councils felt
that they were not always treated with respect by planning officers.
Mr P Williams added that in his experience parish councils would like more
information about planning applications and the reasons for the decisions
made.
At this point the Chairman thanked the Head of Planning for her contributions,
that she had heard the feeling of the Standards Committee and the frustrations
from the parish councils. A better communication, engagement and feedback
Standards Committee
4
09 September 2014
strategy was needed to prevent further upsets and to demonstrate that parish
councils were a vital part of the democratic system.
The Head of Planning finished by outlining where the service was going; with
feedback to parish councils to build understanding, and that she was keen to
run sessions so that parish councils understood planning „language‟. However
there were limited resources and t the priority for the planning department was
to get on top of the workload and to look at the department‟s processes. She
added that she was aware that parish councils sometimes received information
before the Members and she wanted to address that. The Head of Planning
also stated that she wanted people to understand the context and to feel heard.
Bite-sized training for Development Committee members would ensure that
they were kept up to date with planning policy changes. She surmised that
better communication would stop complaints and bad feeling.
Mr B Hannah suggested visiting the parishes could assist in this. The Head of
Planning agreed with Mr B Hannah, however she expressed concerns over
resources available and the number of parishes in the district.
At 14:55pm The Head of Planning left the meeting.
The Chairman addressed the committee by asking how they saw the
committee moving forwards.
Mr P Moore responded that he saw the committee continuing as they had
been, with the addition of exploring the planning communications aspects.
The Chairman agreed that planning issues need to be explained to the parish
councils.
The Chairman said that the next stage of the Standards Committee input into
parish council matters would be to build a good rapport with them and include
more information on planning issues. The Chairman added that the previous
Democratic Services Officer (TGS) had done a good job liaising with the parish
councils.
Mr P Moore enquired about whether the parish councils had provided feedback
following the visits.
The Chairman answered that the parish councils were given feedback forms.
Mr P Moore asked whether the information from the forms could be fed back to
the committee.
The Democratic Services Team Leader had contacted parish clerks regarding
the visits and the general feeling was that they appreciated the contact and
effort.
It was agreed that the Democratic Services team would put information
together on planning for the parish councils, including the flow chart which
would need to be amended/adjusted for parish council use.
Mr A Bullen asked how many elected members were on the Planning
Committee.
Standards Committee
5
09 September 2014
The Democratic Services Team Leader informed the committee that there were
14 elected members on the Development Committee.
Mr P Williams suggested that the planning information should be included in
the second round of parish council visits.
The Chairman agreed that the next round of visits would be co-ordinated with
the Planning Department.
8.
STANDARDS AND TIMESCALES
The Chairman read out the information in the meeting agenda which stated that
at the request of the Chief Executive, the Monitoring Officer had prepared a
report regarding the process and timescales for dealing with complaints.
The recommendations were to consider changes to the complaints form and to
consider changes to the criteria for the receipt and assessment of complaints
that was set out on page 97 of the constitution.
Mrs M Evans commented that it was a matter of process and that any updated
complaints forms should have an imprint date and a version number, as there
would be a variation in the form requirements.
Mr A Bullen queried whether the last page of the complaint form should be
signed by the complainant.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that it was generally accepted that
electronic versions of forms sent by e-mail could be taken as a signature.
The Monitoring Officer stated that there were safeguards in place and that he
often telephoned the complainant to ask whether they wanted to add anything
to their complaint. The Monitoring Officer added that during the complaints
process, statements were also taken.
The complaints form had received some minor amendments and the committee
were receptive to these changes.
Mr A Nash suggested that the complaint form should state that a signature
would be required at a later date and as part of the complaints process.
Mr P Moore added that the complainant should have their complaint
acknowledged.
Mr P Moore then went on to say that when complaints were reported back to
the Committee they seemed to be very brief and formulaic.
The Monitoring Officer responded by stating that the arrangements had been in
place for 2 years now. The process included initial receipt and assessment,
followed by investigation and a hearing where necessary.
The Monitoring Officer went on to explain that the assessment was a threshold
stage and that it was looked at from the point of view as to whether the
complaint was actually a standards issue and that this approach mirrored other
local authorities. The Government‟s „light touch‟ approach meant that the
phrasing in assessing complaints was done in this way for the sake of
Standards Committee
6
09 September 2014
consistency. The Monitoring Officer assured the committee that each complaint
was looked at individually and then processed through the threshold
assessment and that a very structured approach was taken.
At this point, Mr A Bullen asked what his role was as a co-opted member as he
did not appear to have any input on cases.
The Monitoring Officer stated that he could bring all complaints to the
committee for consideration if that is what the committee wanted to do. The
Monitoring Officer added that The Independent Person had input into the
complaints process, but that it was for the Members to decide how they would
like to proceed.
If Members felt the balance should be adjusted, then this was a matter for the
committee to decide.
Mr H Gupta informed the committee that he had no issue with the Monitoring
Officer‟s reports; that the salient points were described properly and that the
brevity didn‟t concern him. Mr H Gupta added that all complaints should be
dealt by the Monitoring Officer initially to prevent the committee from being
overloaded.
The Monitoring Officer said that the number of complaints was relatively
manageable and that he wasn‟t sure that it would cause an issue if the
committee chose to hear each complaint in terms of time.
The Monitoring Officer added that his role was to advise the Council regarding
governance issues and legal issues and that if Members would like to review all
of the complaints he was happy to comply. He also informed the committee
that there were no outstanding complaints at this time.
Mr Peter Moore appreciated the comments made by the Monitoring Officer. He
questioned what counted as an investigation and said that he did not want to
go back to excessive reports on complaints.
The Monitoring Officer responded by saying that only those allegations found to
be in breach of the Code were referred for investigation.
Mrs M Evans said that she would like to see the Monitoring Officer and
Independent Person reviewing the complaints together.
Mr G Allen referred to a recent complaint for which the Monitoring Officer
concluded that there wasn‟t a case to be answered, but that the committee had
disagreed with this decision.
Mr B Hannah followed with saying how much the input of the co-opted
Members was valued.
The Chairman addressed the issue of cost; travelling and members‟ time if they
were involved in assessing all complaints. She said that it was important to be
cost-effective, but also efficient and to get the balance right. The Chairman
continued by saying now that time frames had been implemented the
Committee may find it hard commit to assessing every complaint.
The Chairman suggested that the Monitoring Officer could receive electronic
input from the Members and reiterated that the Monitoring Officer was willing to
Standards Committee
7
09 September 2014
be flexible to meet the needs of the committee. The Chairman asked the
Members and co-opted Members how they wanted to progress.
Mr H Gupta said that the Localism Act had watered down the co-opted
Members‟ responsibilities. He went on to say that he was happy to contribute
but that it was up to the Council to decide how much the committee should be
involved.
Mr P Moore commented that he saw no difference between the Members and
the co-opted Members and didn‟t distinguish between the two – that they were
all in the Standards Committee. Mr P Moore also pointed out that it was more
important to do things right than to do them quickly and that democracy was
more important than cost, but that there were too many vexatious complaints.
He said that the Monitoring Officer should be „recommending‟ rather than
„advising‟ a decision and he felt that this was a satisfactory way forwards.
The Chairman referred to the use of sub-committees by the Licensing. She
said that this approach would need to fit in with the complaint process‟ time
scales.
The Monitoring Officer said that he wanted to endorse what Mr P Moore had
said – that in the years of this committee he had not seen a division between
elected Members and co-opted Members and that politics had not impinged on
the running of the committee. The Monitoring Officer said he felt that the
committee had struck the right balance and that they were very effective.
The Monitoring Officer asked the committee whether they wanted him to
consult the Independent Person on every complaint.
Mr H Gupta said that he thought complex cases should be shared with the
Independent Person, but that it didn‟t make sense to consult him on every
case.
The Chairman asked whether the committee could work on the complaints or
whether a sub-committee should be formed.
The Monitoring Officer said that the assessment of complaints was
manageable for Standards Committee.
The action to view complaints at Standards Committee was proposed by Mr P
Moore and seconded by Mr B Hannah. Members voted unanimously in favour.
9.
MONITORING OFFICER’S ANNUAL REPORT 2013/14
Mr B Hannah raised the issue of the Ombudsman as a significant point from
the report.
The Monitoring Officer commenting on the recent report to the Audit Committee
confirmed that a full summary of all complaints to the Council had not
previously come before the Standards Committee. Future reports would include
MP letters and Ombudsman complaints.
At 16:02 Mr B Hannah and Miss B Palmer made their apologies and left the
meeting.
Standards Committee
8
09 September 2014
The Chairman thanked the Monitoring Officer for his report. She also thanked
him for all of his work over the last year and for his input. The Chairman also
thanked staff for their efforts.
10.
EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
None present
11.
STANDARDS AND CONDUCT CASES
None – apart from one complaint handed to the Monitoring Officer at the
beginning of this meeting.
Mr P Williams asked the Monitoring Officer where he was up to with the
reports.
The Monitoring Officer reported that a complainant had challenged the
outcome of one case and that this had been passed back to the investigator.
The Monitoring Officer added that he would bring the new complaint to the next
Standards Committee meeting.
The meeting concluded at 16.10 pm
__________________
Chairman
Standards Committee
9
09 September 2014