Agenda item

Cllr Taylor informed the committed that he had given M Brookes a couple of questions from the Chairman of Development Control, and when appropriate for M Brooks to answer them.

 

M Brookes introduced the report stating that they will be going through the planning code of practice. C Gaunt has helped M Brooks with the process and is happy to take members through it, highlighting the main changes.

 

M Brookes said that once it had been considered at this committee it will then be taken to the Development Control Committee for comments then onto Council for adoption.

 

C Wyatt-Lowe asked if she had to declare an interest as she sits on that committee.

 

Cllr Taylor said this this won’t cause any problems, M Brookes agreed.

 

Cllr Taylor informed the committee that the Chair of Development Control was talking about pre meetings and it being open to all committee members, a legal officer should also be present and the meeting should not discuss details or merits of any cases.

 

Cllr Taylor asked M Brookes to remind the committee what pre meetings were for.

 

M Brookes asked if this could be discussed when we reach that point in the document.

 

Cllr Tindal added to that saying his understanding was that at the development control committee they are there as individuals.

 

Cllr Taylor agreed.

 

Cllr C Wyatt-Lowe said it has been raised before that Councillors raise their concern and everyone is invited but they don’t show.

 

Cllr Taylor referred to the constitution which says a pre meeting will take place and there are exceptions to development control. This will be covered in C Gaunt’s presentation and will be discussed when we meet the relevant sections.

 

C Gaunt presented the planning code of practice which was adopted in 2008 and it has been some time since it was last reviewed. Since then, there have been some changes and the new updates have been included.

 

C Gaunt referred to paragraph 1.4, this section sets out how the planning process interacts with the member’s code of conduct, and reminds us of the risks on planning decisions that are made.

 

C Gaunt then referred to 3.2, pre applications discussing involving members. These aren’t what were mentioned a minute ago. This minimised planning risk and improves development delivery.

 

Cllr Tindall referred to 3.2.5 page 11, does that mean the content or the fact we are attending the briefing from the developers is confidential. Perhaps the information in the meeting is confidential.

 

C Gaunt replied, that was his understanding.

 

C Gaunt then referred to 5.4. There was recent members training on freedom of information act and disclosure of items, this is a reminder.

 

M Brookes said they have had a few examples of members representing their ward but writing into officers in strong terms about schemes and whether they should be approved or not. This is a reminder that information can be disclosed so be wary of the language when one writes in.

 

Cllr C Wyatt-Lowe said generally in her experience this arises with newer members. Perhaps this should fall part of the new member development scheme to ensure members are aware.

 

Cllr Taylor will take this on board; they have had a fairly recently presentation on officer, member respect with confidentiality.

 

M Brookes said this was spoken about at our last meeting when we were looking at the employee member code of conduct. This was emphasised that we need to respect each other, there was some amendments put forward, this will form part of the induction programme.

 

Cllr Taylor said that from a member training point of view we have to be competence on the constitution, the constitution is now being looked at and it’s something M Brookes has embraced to ensure it will be on the iPad in the future.

 

C Gaunt referred to 5.8 this links to what we were saying earlier about pre meetings. The aim is to make it clear that we don’t consider planning application or merits.

 

Cllr Taylor said that the point raised by the DC Chair says this meeting does not discuss the details or merits of any case, therefore 5.8 may not be relevant. Maybe the Chairman has taken this the wrong way round; this will only be relevant when we need it.

With M Brooke’s blessing he will arrange for a reply to go to the Chair explaining why it’s there.

 

Cllr C Wyatt-Lowe stated that she was very positive when she read this as these pre meeting are very useful, what they do is allow the general application and not its merits and it stimulates the thinking.

 

M Brookes said they are happy with the comments and comfortable with the drafting so they are happy to leave it in and have another discussion at Development Control.

 

Cllr C Wyatt-Lowe said it reads as if the pre meeting cannot take place unless there is a member from the Legal Team or a Senior Planning Officer present is that correct?

 

C Gaunt said the way it is drafted at the minutes is that there shouldn’t be any meeting that discusses the planning merits, unless its organised by a senior officer.

 

C Gaunt said this largely enforces what you said was happening anyway, where someone tries to discuss it and is shut down. This formalises that.

 

Cllr Taylor states that now this is in place the Chair can refer to the Constitution to say it can’t be discussed. There is now evidence to say why this is being said.

 

C Gaunt referred to lobbying, 6.5 this is a large new section. Members are comparing for particular issues, this doesn’t stop the issues being persuaded it reinforces the member in question on the decision making.

 

B Henry referred to 6.5.3, how you define ‘excessively’

 

M Brookes stated that this was a good point, and that there should be an obligation not to lobby fellow Councillors.

 

Cllr Tindall said this could be, every Councillor is entitled to step down from  the committee and join the party who are objecting or favouring and speak in the planning application but take no part.

He thinks M Brookes is right and there shouldn’t be any lobbying on an individual basis.

 

M Brookes agreed he would be happy to remove the word excessively.

 

Cllr Tindall added to that, saying this is why most of us, when we get emails from the Public all we do is reply saying we will take comments into considerations rather than getting into a debate.

 

C Gaunt referred to 11.2 this helps strengthen it. The wording from this is recently taken from a court appeal. Linked to that is 11.5 members shall be aware that they are likely to justify a decision by giving evidence to planning enquiry appeal in the event of any challenge.

 

Cllr Wyatt-Lowe made a point on that stating it’s very irritating when members sometimes go against an officer’s recommendation, then when it comes to an appeal they don’t show up at an appeal to follow it up. This then leaves other members who might not have felt so strongly about it. Is there anyway we can build into that, if members are involved in a decision which leads to an appeal that it’s mandatory that they have to respond to the inspector or be present.

 

Cllr Tindall supported that. The Councillor could end up losing the case and this would then incurs costs, hence the reason why you should justify the reason if you go against the officer.

 

Cllr Fisher said, we should give reasons prior to the vote, and has a feeling we don’t, we vote then discuss, and surely we need reasoning before we vote.

 

Cllr Tindall said that the officers and legal team are always helpful, therefore they are essential.

 

Cllr Taylor gave a court example, if someone didn’t show in court then the opposite wins.

The member who went against the officers/legal advice they should be held accountable. He supports this; the member has a duty to stand by their reasoning if a decision is called in.

 

Cllr Tindall said that Cllr Taylor’s example to a call-in was a separate issue.

 

M Brookes said if you have called it in it doesn’t mean you’re going to object. It means you want the wider committee to look at it.

 

Cllr Tindall asked if we can look at Cllr C Wyatt-Lowe’s point and then come back to this separate issue.

 

Cllr C Wyatt-Lowe said that sometimes we don’t agree with residents but you do it because they asked you to, the views that you present, are representative views; as far as she is aware Cllr’s don’t call things in off their own back.

The other point is that the call-in works very well and asked for this not to be changed.

 

Cllr Taylor said that we need to be consistence in the clause, when the member is making a decision contra to an officer’s suggestion that person should be accountable to wherever the decision goes. Then this person is individually responsible for answering their reasoning to why the decision was made against the professional advice.

 

Cllr C Wyatt-Lowe agrees but as Cllr Fisher stated we are responsible for what goes on.

 

Cllr Tindall said that the committee needs to come to a decision. An officer would not take residents views into the committee, a Councillor would. There is a distinction on the pre committee and committee stage. Those that speak against officers should be made to support the Council in the defence of an appeal.

 

M Brookes totally agrees with this and explain that’s the purpose of having 11.5. To make every member aware that they are likely to be called to justify their decision, the only difference is you say it’s a must, dates are set and can’t be changed, therefore it maybe hard for someone to attend or the Council may want an officer to argue the case instead. It’s difficult to say it’s a must but it says they are likely to be called.

 

Cllr C Wyatt-Lowe agreed with M Brookes.

 

J Ebdon referred to 2.1.3 can he see that ‘’planning’’ had been inserted as the only change.

 

C Gaunt agreed that was the only change.

 

J Ebdon asked for clarity as to why it needs to have ‘’planning’’ there.

 

C Gaunt confirmed that it was for absolute clarity we are talking about planning considerations, also how it fits more certainty just in case it gets queried.

 

Cllr Tindall asked if he was right in thinking that when you use the phrase material planning considerations, those worlds form a particular function within the planning acts and planning legislation so people involved in that know exactly what those three words mean.

 

C Gaunt said yes, courts haven’t defined exactly what is meant by material planning considerations, there is no list. There are various cases which say this is and no that’s not, but there is not definitive list.

 

J Ebdon referred to the interaction between 6.4.4 and 6.4.6, does this imply any gift or hospitality from a lobbyist has to be reported, but hospitality which is unavoidable is somehow acceptable from someone who isn’t a lobbyist. He is confused by the paragraphs.

 

M Brookes stated that some hospitality is unavoidable; the point is that you declare it after.

 

J Ebdon asked if the paragraphs could be merged as one.

 

M Brookes said this can be looked at and amended in the revised code.

 

 

Cllr Taylor asked the committee to look at page 23, on the dress code and asked if anyone had anything that they wished to discuss.

 

M Brookes said since the last meeting where in the code of conduct, staff employee and member relations there was a section on dress code for members and a bit about staff, he mentioned at that meeting officers were working on a staff dress code and now we need to reflect what was said in the previous code.

 

This staff dress code attached is what officers have decided to adopt and we respect that it’s not something that can be changed now. What he wanted to bring to members attention was what we said in the pervious code is consistent with that, and in his report he has proposed a few slight amendments on page 5.

 

J Ebdon asked what the definition of ‘’smart’’ was.

 

M Brookes said that we wouldn’t like to re open a debate on this. He will take this back to CMT.  The aim was to get rid of jeans.

 

 

Cllr Taylor introduced John Worts who gave a run through of the new guidance on social media and the protocols and policies. He explained that it’s a balanced use in working and social life.

 

The Council have to provide proof of compliance to the Cabinet Office that we are meeting the requirements in a range of security controls.

J Worts focus tonight was around the organisational controls (Policies, Procedures and Guidance) to help both staff and members.

He explained the following approaches to help people when posting on social media;

• That the policies we have are there to protect staff and members and the Council has a two page guidance document explaining the key points, “dos and don’ts” for social medial.
• The reasons for having a strong security and privacy setting when setting up accounts on social media
• Handling Personal Data under the Data Protection Act.
• When posting think about objectivity in comments, and that private social media accounts may be deemed as the views of your role as a councillor. Protect the reputation of the Council.
• Training courses that are offered.
• Social media policies and procedures for reporting a suspected breach of security or Data Protection Principles.

 

J Worts was happy to take questions from Members.

 

M Brookes asked J Worts, if a Councillor has Facebook and criticises the Council, what your advice is.

 

J Worts said they should contact Communications or John Worts himself if anyone has concerned about this.

 

Cllr Taylor said we as Councillors have no right of appeal against slander or liable.

In February 2017 we have arranged a member development meeting based upon the wise use of social media. If it is used wisely it is a powerful tool. As a moral standard social media should be used wisely, use with caution.

 

Cllr Taylor thanked J Worts and C Gaunt and requested a copy of the do’s and don’ts

To be attached to the minutes.

 

M Brookes informed the committee that Rachel Keil (Independent Person) was re-appointed at Council, until annual council in April 2019.

 

He also added, from the minutes at the last meeting you had asked for an update on Berkhamsted Town Councillors if they had adopted their new policies. The clerk had informed him that the standing orders had been adopted the new HR polices have been subject to an internal discussion and are going for adoption at their Full Council meeting later this month.

 

Action:  None

Outcome: Report was noted.