CLACKMANNANSHIRE COUNCIL
Report to Regulatory Committee of 21st December, 2006
Subject: Review of Oral Submissions Scheme
Prepared by:
Stephen Bell, Head of Development Services
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1.
The scheme governing oral submissions at the Regulatory Committee was
introduced in February 2005 for a trial period.
1.2.
A review of the scheme and a consultation exercise have been undertaken
and this report sets out the relevant findings.
1.3.
The scheme is seen generally as a success and officers and participants
consider it should be made permanent.
1.4.
Subject to a minor change to paragraph 3.1 of the scheme, it is recommended
that the scheme be made permanent.
2.0
RECOMMENDATION
2.1.
It is recommended that, subject to an amendment to Para 3.1, allowing
notification of a request to make oral submissions up to two days before
Committee as opposed to four, the Scheme Governing Oral Submissions on
Planning Applications (Appendix 3) should be adopted on a permanent basis.
3.0
BACKGROUND
3.1.
Members will recall that following approval at the Enterprise and Environment
Committee in December 2004, the procedure whereby oral submission on
planning applications could be heard was introduced at the Enterprise and
Environment Committee in February 2005.
3.2.
It was also agreed at the time of approval of the scheme that there would be a
review of its operation so that the Committee could consider and assess any
issues that arose before making it permanent.
4.0
REVIEW OF THE SCHEME
4.1.
I have carried out a review of the scheme and found that in general it has
worked very well from an officer perspective.
106750658
Page 1 of 4
Some initial teething problems were resolved very early in the trial period and
since then administrative procedures have generally run smoothly.
4.2.
In addition to the officer review I carried out a consultation exercise of all
participants in the scheme. Forty questionnaires (See Appendix 1) were
issued seeking views on participants experience of the scheme.
4.3.
Of the forty questionnaires issued, fourteen (35%) were returned with the
following results:Question 1 – How satisfied were you with the information provided to you on
how the oral submission procedure works before the meeting?
Very satisfied/satisfied
Dissatisfied/very dissatisfied
86%
7%
Question 2 – How satisfied were you with the information you received on the
date, time and venue of the meeting?
Very satisfied/satisfied
Dissatisfied/very dissatisfied
72%
14%
Question 3 – How satisfied were you with the amount of time you had to make
your submission at the meeting?
Very satisfied/satisfied
Dissatisfied/very dissatisfied
79%
7%
Question 4 – How satisfied were you with procedures and conduct of the
meeting that you attended?
Very satisfied/satisfied
Dissatisfied/very dissatisfied
58%
14%
Question 5 – How satisfied were you that the Committee took into account
your views (irrespective of the ultimate decision)?
Very satisfied/satisfied
Dissatisfied/very dissatisfied
50%
21%
Question 7 – Overall, do you think that the introduction of the opportunity for
applicants and agents and objectors to make oral submissions to Committee
makes the planning system more open and accountable
YES
100%
NO 0%
Question 8 -Do you support the idea of making the arrangement permanent?
YES
106750658
100%
NO 0%
Page 2 of 4
4.4.
Responses to question six, which asked for comments, and any other
comments made by respondents, are set out fully in Appendix 2.
4.5.
It is clear from the questionnaire responses that participants unanimously
support the principles of the scheme and would support making it a
permanent fixture of the Committee procedures (Questions 7 and 8).
4.6.
It is also clear from the responses that respondents are generally satisfied
with information provision, administrative arrangements and the time made
available at Committee for them to make representations. (Questions 1, 2
and 3).
4.7.
It is interesting to note, however, that respondents are less satisfied with the
process at Committee. Some of this dissatisfaction may, of course, be related
to the outcome of the Committee debate and resolution. However, it should
also be noted that some respondents would have liked greater involvement in
the debate following their submission and because they were not permitted to
do so, they have expressed some dissatisfaction with the procedure. Those
expressing dissatisfaction were, however, in the minority.
4.8.
There are some comments about timescales and information availability and I
would propose small amendments to the scheme to take these matters into
account as set out in the recommendation.
5.0
CONCLUSION
5.1
The principle of allowing oral submissions to be made at Committee has been
a popular and well appreciated innovation which has led to greater openness
and transparency in decision-making on planning applications.
5.2
In general, participants and officers are satisfied that the scheme runs well in
terms of its administrative arrangements.
5.3
Committee meetings where oral submissions take place tend to last longer
than otherwise would be the case. This was predicted.
5.4
As was also predicted when the scheme was introduced, there is a significant
onus on the Convener to ensure that the business of the Committee is
concluded whilst at the same time seeking to satisfy the expectations of those
who do participate in making oral submissions. This is often a difficult
balance to strike however most participants are satisfied that the Convener
has achieved this.
5.5
Subject to a minor change to Paragraph 3.1 of the Scheme, allowing
notification from prospective participants up to two days before committee
rather than four days, it is recommended that the Scheme as previously
agreed should be adopted on a permanent basis.
106750658
Page 3 of 4
6.0
SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS
6.1.
None
7.0
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1.
None
7.2.
Declarations
1. The recommendations contained within
this report support or implement Corporate
Priorities, Council policies and/or the
Community Plan:
Corporate Priorities
Council Policies
Community Plan
Reference
----
2. In adopting the recommendations
contained in this report the Council is acting
within its legal powers.

3. The full financial implications of the
recommendations contained in this report are
set out in the report. This includes a
reference to full life cycle costs where
appropriate.

Head of Development Services
Director of Development and Environmental Services
106750658
Page 4 of 4