Minutes:
Glenfield Railway Tunnel
The Chair reported back that those attending the site visit had been assured that the proposals for the maintenance works were appropriate and suitable.
Labour Group Attendance at CAP meetings
Councillor Patrick Kitterick, Cabinet Portfolio Holder – Regeneration and Transport, attended the meeting and outlined the position of the Labour Group with regard to attendance at CAP meetings. He noted that his group had discussed the matter. As far as Councillors who were members of the Planning and Development Control (PDC) Committee, there were still concerns about the issue of pre-determination, more specifically where a Councillor was seemed to have gained a pre-determined view on an application prior to considering it at a Committee meeting. He also pointed to case law arising from Islington which had shown that attendance at a body such as CAP was felt to have influenced Councillors in their decision making. Therefore his group didn’t feel it would be suitable for members of the PDC Committee to attend.
He did however comment that it would be acceptable for members of the Labour Group who weren’t members of the PDC Committee to attend, although he wasn’t presently aware of any interested persons. He also gave a commitment to providing support from the Committee Services section to the Panel.
He also said that he was happy to attend future meetings of the Panel to discuss any matters of policy which the Panel wanted to consider. Further he felt that there could be standing speaking rights on offer to CAP members at the Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny function. He commented further that the work of the Panel was valued and he was happy to consider further ways in which Panel Members thought that CAP could engage in the policy process.
Panel members made a number of comments.
It was commented that Councillors on the Planning and Development Control Committee must meet with and be contacted by constituents and developers as part of the application process on a regular basis. Cllr. Kitterick stated that members of the Committee would declare the fact that they had been contacted by anyone. He also stated that a Committee member would not meet with a developer independently.
It was felt that people attending the Panel were hearing more detailed information about planning applications; therefore it would actually be useful for decision makers to attend. Cllr. Kitterick in response stated that due to the quasi-judicial nature of planning decisions it would seem unfair to an applicant for them to not have similar access to the decision makers.
Officers noted that the Panel had been in existence for 20 years with Councillors attending and queried why their attendance was an issue now. Cllr. Kitterick noted that standards in Local Government were now more of an issue. The Standards Board requirements now put Councillors in the spotlight over their conduct. He felt that they were perhaps too officious in their application of the rules. He also commented that his group didn’t judge other political groups on how they interpreted the rules.
The Officer commented further that she felt that it was a backwards step to not have Councillors attending panel meetings and that judgements shouldn’t be made about the work of the Panel. Cllr. Kitterick commented further that this issue could be revisited in the future, but he didn’t expect this to happen soon.
Stephen Heathcote commented that he agreed that the spotlight on Councillors had increased. He did however feel that it would be worth considering what other local authorities do in respect of Councillor attendance at Conservation Panels. He undertook to do this.
Cllr. Kitterick reiterated his offer for members of the Panel to speak to him if they had any ideas for how the Panel could provide further input into relevant planning policy.
The Chair thanked Cllr. Kitterick for attending.
Other Items
It was queried whether there was to be a Heritage Champion at Councillor level. Officers noted that this was unclear at present.
Membership
The Committee Administrator noted that the former Councillor Garrity had offered her services as a Panel member. The Panel agreed to discuss the matter in more detail at the next meeting.
109 – 133 Granby Street
Members of the Panel queried the details of the approval of this application and whether it had been to Committee. Officers noted that as part of the approval PPG15 requirements were considered to have been met, as there was not sufficient original material left in the temperance hotel building. Panel members expressed further concerns about the size of the proposed building.