er break anyway I'm fine thank you oh okay thank you everybody we are now um looking at agenda item eight which is on page 243 members and this is around the application 20 stroke 02453 stroke s 73 the retreat Puse lanes Long Stanton um and this is around the variation of condition seven the traffic management plan pursuant to planning position permission s stroke 0277 stroke 19 fl to reflect the proposals in the traffic management plan to substitute the current wording in condition seven with the development hereby committed should be carried out in accordance with the traffic management plan prepared by SLR consulting version final one and dated December 2019 which is resubmitted the applicant is mr jerry kadoo of landbrook homes limited the key material considerations for us members highway safety including the safety of all users of the adopted and unadopted highways in the vicinity of the site no site visit it's not a departure um and the decision is due by 16th of july 2020 this has been brought to committee um because it was referred as a result of request by the parish council and because in the opinion of officers the matter should be determined by committee presenting officer is once again louis tomlinson and louis thank you do you want to um give us your presentation thank you chair i'll just share my screen could you just confirm that you can see that in front of you yes we can thank you great thank you chair so again it's the um property known as the retreat um down fuse lane long stanton this application is in relation to the front of the site so where the existing bungalow is to be demolished and replaced with two dwellings um under planning permission s slash zero two seven seven slash one nine slash f l parking for these two two new houses will take place from the site frontage onto fuse lane and a further single-story dwelling is permitted to be erected in the former garden area as um subject to the previous application um fuse lane is not an adopted highway and comprises of a single vehicle width gravel service track the lane currently serves an access to a double garage serving the hundred five hundred and thirty five high streets to three other dwellings the willows and the two recently constructed dwellings as well as the development plots at the retreat the lane varies in width and the half service track runs alongside a treed and vegetated area to the north with boundaries to number hundred and thirty five high street and the willows to the south side um a footpath public right away linking home farm residential development to the south and west of fuse lane with high street emerges on the south side of fuse lane at a point to the immediate west of the willows and before the existing informal turning area beyond site lives within the designated village framework and is otherwise unconstrained so I will just run through so as you can see again uh high street here um fuse lane access in the retreat so this is an aerial site view so just to be clear this application relates to this part of the site which is for the erection of two dwellings um the double garage for a four hundred and thirty five high street it's just here and this is the willows these are the recently constructed dwellings you've got a public right away which runs along here and down here just run through the approved plans so this is the approved site plan it's on here you can see again fuse lane the two uh dwellings which is the subject of this permission the bungalow as discussed previously and two recently constructed dwellings you've also got the willows here and then the double garage here these are the approved elevations for the dwellings this is the approved floor plans and section and this is the approved street elevation I'll just run through a number of photos just to make members aware of the site so this is a view up fuse lane from the access of high street I've got a number 135 high street on the left here you can just see their garage just there this is a view along high street past frontage of fuse lane look north and got fuse lane on the left and please note the traffic calming just here there's a view along high street past the frontage of fuse lane look in south of fuse lane on the right view along high street past frontage of fuse lane look in south of fuse lane on the right taken from the entrance to Mitchcroft road fuse lane entrance is just here you've got the traffic calming here um this is a photo taken from the fuse lane entrance looking towards the north and this is a photo again taken from the fuse lane entrance looking towards the south and this is another photo looking down fuse lane to further into fuse lane with the garage to 135 high street just here and the willows just here on the left again another photo looking down fuse lane as you can see the retreats and the existing bungalows just on the right here the recently constructed dwellings just in the foreground this is the informal turning head opposite the retreat and this is a photo showing the access on to fuse lane from the public right away to home farm so the proposal in front of you today is an application that solely seeks to consent for the variation of condition seven which is in relation to a traffic management plan of plan permission s slash zero two seven seven slash one nine slash f l to amend the wording of the condition from a pre-commencement submission to a compliance for the approval of a detailed traffic management plan so the current wording of condition seven is in front of you please note one of the key parts of this condition was part two can contractor parking shall be within the cartridge of the site and not on the streets the application seeks to amend the wording of condition seven to the text in front of you development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the traffic management plan prepared by slr consulting version final one and dated december 2019 so the reason why this is in front of you today so the applicant claims that submitted traffic management plan is informed by lessons learned during the construction in 2018 to two existing new homes on the site the traffic management plan traffic management plan includes details of the arrangements for the delivery of materials turning movements enclosure of the site and contractor parking during the construction phase as well as detailing areas for material storage keeping site and area clear and the site office site circumstances in this case notably the size of the development plots itself however mean that the space for parking within the site is limited accordingly the traffic management plan refers to revision for contractor parking at digital park and station road on stanton noting that fuse lane itself is is of inadequate width to accommodate parking adjacent to the site the plan also proposes arrangements for addressing condition 15 control of hours in respect of vehicles arriving early the revision of offsite contractor parking is meant however the terms of part two of the original planning condition above cannot be met and is this departure from the original condition that's prone to this application third party representations and parish council comments highlight a number of concerns around the access and movements of vehicles into and the long fuse lane in so far as the traffic management plan can address these issues when the application site is of this size officers are satisfied with the highway authority conclusions that the measures outlined in the traffic management plan are appropriate and reasonable for larger vehicle movements where the turn area is insufficient because of the size of the site itself officers have noted that the traffic management plan proposed that vehicles would reverse into the site with the assistance of a bank'sman to maintain safety in long fuse lane during these maneuvers the parish council and third parties have expressed concern about this approach but officers considered to be a few practical or safer alternatives to this approach for development of the scale where the number of large vehicles movements would be limited the traffic management plan commits to keep clear access to the existing homes along fuse lane throughout the construction phase and to maintain the right of way clear of obstructions for pedestrians vehicle speeds along fuse lane itself or in officers view likely to be a low likely to be low five mile per hour limit is proposed within the traffic management plan and would be subject to normal care and consideration the risk to pedestrians and vehicles drivers using an entry and leaving fuse lane is accordingly considered to be satisfactorily addressed by the traffic management plan at the access point into fuse lane into this into visibility between vehicles or pedestrians on the high street and fuse lane note an existing footway width along high street and position of hedges and boundaries has been judged to be appropriate the highway authority has assessed the submitted traffic management plan and considers it to be acceptable and supports proposed variation to wording of condition seven so there are two update points that I'd just like to bring to members' attention so the first one is officers can advise members that as a fresh permission will be issued since s slash zero two seven seven slash one nine slash f l was approved there's been no material change of policy or other circumstances which might require reassessment of other conditions or indeed a reassessment of development as a whole whilst paragraph 21 of the officer reports covers a reassessment of conditions officers should add that they are satisfied that no wider reconsideration of the principal development is called for or justified and the second update point is haven't had further recent discussions with the highway authority the council maintains a position that as the local planning authority has lawful authority to entertain this application pursuant to section three two seven eight of the nineteen ninety acts and article seven of the dmpo 2015 there is no flaw in the red line as submitted when the application when the application on the reference s slash zero two seven seven slash one nine f l was approved which appears to be the route or third party concerns the issues is understood to concern with visibility displays at the end of fuse lane were required to be included in the red line plan of the original application the council's legal advice including from external council who has reviewed has reviewed all the correspondence is clear that they did not and that in any event any event that the issue is not directly raised by consideration of this application and is too late to challenge the original permission the highway authority remains satisfied that the adequate displays exist and as they're on highway land will continue to do so the issue of lawful authority cannot be resolved conclusively today there is no case law that supports the third party position on this matter and council's advice is clear in these circumstances it is open to diffuse lane consultorium to test the point by issuing judicial review proceedings if the application before you today is approved if they wish but its officer's advice that notwithstanding the extensive correspondence there is no underlying legal flaw so to conclude the officer recommendation is approval subject to the conditions imposed on the planning permission s slash zero two seven seven slash one nine slash f l and the revised one of condition seven as proposed within the section sent to application thank you chair thank you very much for this and from the chair I just like to say how much we appreciate having that level of detail and clarity in terms of looking at the debate that we will be having and the questions that may come in so helping us to understand that particularly around the legal aspects of this councillor braddenham do we have any clarification questions for the case officer yes we have one from councillor Robert's and one from me and one from councillor Richard Williams thank you councillor Roberts yeah thank you very much chairman and hopefully my electricity will bear with me for this part two of this exercise um yeah I mean it's a huge tone that we've been all trying to get our heads around and um I shall be asking few lanes consultium something to do with page 260 if it would like to get that in mind but for the officer I would and I don't really think it's a question for Mr Tomlinson I think it's a question for the legal department in that the bottom line there said there is um no case law now that doesn't necessarily in my mind say that um there is not a case is that presently nobody's bought brought these sort of matters to the high court for judgments I don't know whether that's correct or not but that's how I read it and I have to say um especially in regards to Fuselain I'm sure that we've thought ourselves quite clever in the past where legal advice has been um argued in our side which has proven to be wrong in the high courts in London so I would like some clarity on just what this um last sentence about there is no case law whether that actually means that um there's no way that it will go to and be proven against us thank you chairman thank you very much Casper Edwards and I think in the presentation the case officer did say that um it is as you've said and therefore obviously the applicant um the objector you know can take this and test it um in the courts it's not saying that it wouldn't would or wouldn't win and I appreciate that um that you've reminded of of again of of what we were told there but that even seems to me even clearer that I'm not sure if that last sentence should have actually been put in because I think it's trying to well I won't say it's trying to but it it has the ability to to mislead members into thinking well there's no case law um it therefore we're we're quite happy and okay to go ahead with it I just personally think that that line should never have been put in and should be disregarded thank you in terms of clarification um I don't know Lewis's case officer whether you want to come back and to just clarify anything there or Stephen you put your camera on for you yep um senior planning uh lawyer for planning thank thank you chair uh thank you council roberts the the the the wording was included uh having been endorsed by uh queen's council and having uh had that endorsement by queen's council I think it was it was appropriate that it that it should have been included uh you're absolutely right we're not saying that because there is currently no case law on point that it doesn't mean that there won't be case law in the future um but uh members might wish to consider the uh the following which is um there are a lot of planning applications up and down the country where local residents are vehemently opposed to the application granting permission um those residents are supported by uh some very clever lawyers and to date uh no objection on the red line point has been taken we're not saying it can't be taken but don't you think that if you had a development of hundreds of houses and you had a sound basis on which to object that in fact somebody wouldn't have already done so to date so we're not saying it can't be done but what we are saying is that we are advised that we do not think the court will support what would in effect bring the planning system up and down the country to an immediate halt because there are so many planning applications where the red line does not extend to cover visibility displays within the highway and and that's the nub of the issue yes but we we can't ignore that somebody um is actually saying to us that that is a point of law that they could and maybe will be prepared to argue no thank you thank you I think I think that's very very clear and thank you Councillor Roberts for coming back thank you um Steven for that and I think it's you know we often wonder you know what's the implications what's the likelihood what's the viability I think what's been put forward to clear is um you know that we have to take into consideration but we will be looking at the merits of this um and we just do know that it could be open to a judicial review if that's what the objector considers to do and I think that all that the the case offer has just done has given us an outlie of the land but of course as Councillor Roberts says that you know and as the case officer said it's quite within the the rights of the objector to take this further if if we were minded to reject this application um which we haven't done so far we haven't gone to the debate was still on the clarification so are there any other questions for clarification yes there's my own please chairman um and and come and Steven can you yes take your camera off um so chairman through you um this is a question for the case officer Mr Tomlinson I just wanted to clarify firstly I have no um objection on the matter of uh visibility displays I think we've had satisfaction that the what is uh proposed is reasonable but my concern lies around the original question which was um if I take us down to the bottom of page 248 paragraph 17 it talks about the fact that this is the the change is being requested and I wanted clarification from Mr Tomlinson on this point am I right in understanding that the the change in this condition has been requested because they don't feel they can park the contractor lorries on the site first question and so their solution then isn't to say where they might put them they then go on to say and it also is still uh discussed on pages 250 and 251 so they then go on to talk about the fact that instead under the transport management plan the lorries will back down fused lane with the aid of a banksman and the fact that they they feel this is reasonable because people will by the very nature of the lane be going extremely slowly five miles an hour so it wouldn't put anybody any pedestrians at risk and um they will maintain access but the question remains are the lorry where will the lorries rest because if there's one lorry in on down the lane where will it stop if it can't go onto the site where will it stop so it's the fact that the original request was to remove the requirement that the contractor lorries should park on site and replace it with this oh instead they're back down the lane I just wondered if Mr Tomlinson could just explain if I haven't understood it correctly is that what's happening just simply a replacement of one with the other this might be a good opportunity for you chair to introduce Dr John Finney from the local highway authority um John are you with us would you be able to answer some of these more technical questions I am can you hear me and see me thank you John if you just want to um yes introduce yourself you are um from the highways and the transport assessment officer is that right I'm Dr John Finney I'm principal development management engineer for the count account sort of as highway authority thank you um three huge care the the question isn't the interpretation isn't quite right the contractor parking refers to parking of vehicles owned by the contractors on site so the tradesmen etc electrician plumbers people like that general ground workers there's insufficient space on the site to accommodate the likely level of tradesmen parking so the developer has suggested quite reasonably in my opinion that they will gain parking at digital park and then use a mini bus to bring those um operatives into the site so it relates to the contractor parking the reversing of the vehicles down fees late used for specific vehicles which need things like roof trusses obviously you can appreciate they're quite large you can't have those broken down and delivered by small vehicles so for specific times you are quite right large vehicles will reverse down huge lane guided by a signaler rather than a banksman because it's non-gender specific so that they will then obviously be maneuvering within a reasonably safe fashion so anybody approaching the vehicle can be guided by the signal or the vehicle can be stopped while the person passes is that satisfactory that's really helpful thank you mr finney no problem thank you very much and i see that councillor richard williams has um yes so withdrawn his request to speak because it was around the same question so thank you for that how do we have any other clarification questions for the case officer none none at the moment chairman thank you thank you so we'll move now to the public speaking section um of the meeting and mr falton welcome back hello again hello again anyway i just want to thank the committee for your very thorough consideration of these two applications today um i think i anyway it's been a very edifying discussion and i just appreciate all of the work you've all put in tremendously so thank you um just a couple points the first point i was you're going to start your three minutes now yes so the first point i was going to raise is that under article 15 of the development management procedure order england in 2015 quote an application for planning permission must be publicized by the local planning authority uh if it affects a right of way to which part three of the wildlife and countryside act 1981 applies this includes publishing a notice to that effect in a newspaper now an article 13 notice was published for this application but an article 13 notice is a notice to landowners published by the applicant of development affecting particular land an article 15 notice is a notice that identifies the land uh being developed as land uh that contains or is related to a public right of way um this notice has never been published in a newspaper or on the council's website and there is a clear statutory requirement that this takes place i don't know why this wasn't done but it hasn't it hasn't been done and it was the council's responsibility to do so um why is this important potentially because i know that a lot of campaign groups who campaign our right of way issues specifically look at article 15 notices and there hasn't been one in this case even though it's required by law um i'll just very very briefly go through the key points first of all uh in regards to case law our case is based on um statutory law the development management procedure england order says that the instructions in the application form are to be followed that's the law the instructions in the application form says that land to be visibility space is to be within the application site within the red line the council has gotten legal advice that's very creative um but we disagree with it and i would also point out that the council's legal advice their uh interpretation of the statute is not based on any known principles of statutory interpretation um our interpretation of the statute is based on case law which the council's is not i realize these are legal points but i just want to clarify that since councillor roberts mentioned it um i think the key point is something that councillor richard williams hit on in the first application today at borne which is when can the local authority attach planning conditions um pertaining to land that is not within the application site and is not within the control of the applicant when is land that was within the application site is the ownership of land regardless of whether or not it's land to which the application relates material to making planning determinations i'll just say that one more time is the identity of the owner of land material in making planning determinations um i'll be happy to answer any questions but i think i'll stop there thank you very much thank you very much do we have any clarification questions for mr falton um chairman we have um a question all i was going to say was do we need to get a response on that first well it may be that one of the the people who are asking the clarification question ask that so go so so councillor debba roberts sorry councillor debba roberts thank you very much chairman good afternoon mr falton um i was sorry i couldn't join in the first but electricity got in the way or didn't get in the way um i did say uh that i would be referring to page two six out two six nought um on the agenda uh which is um a uh correspondence that yourselves put into south cams um with lots of bullet points um i i did enjoy your uh description of the uh legal representation that looked for from outside council hope that was quite sweet and interesting um and i would say first of all um you saw that piece about um case law which i was not happy to see actually put there so what what would your feelings be about case law and with regard to page two six nought um paragraph 10 and paragraph 12 so paragraph 10 which is about the question of the visibility displays and whether that is um a requirement a proper requirement and and do you feel therefore that particular paragraph still holds sway and at paragraph 12 um the information and i'm going to emphasize here that whatever you say here will not affect my decision making here but it would be interesting to me to see whether at paragraph 12 that would be um the fuse lane consortium's um still intention that uh if this was to be passed that is the way that you would be going forward so thank you very much um okay um to start going back to the case law issue um the council also has no case law to support its interpretation of the statute um the council also has no statutory law to support its interpretation of the statute um the council has no law period to support its interpretation but we have statute law and we have case law to support our interpretation of statute law we've spent three years campaigning against this development we have sought legal advice from three extremely qualified experienced public law barristers as you know i have put a lot of work into the fuse lane consortium and this is an issue that is not only of crucial importance to us but i think is going to set a precedent that is nationally important to local planning authorities across england and we are um not that this is materials to the decision but we absolutely are going to move forward with judicial review because i think it's an important point that needs to be established in case law um because it has real ramifications for the highway safety of this particular junction there's no visibility the highway's authority has there's no visibility zero um and there's no clear indication that the um council has considered the relevant material considerations uh in regards to um this issue i think that addresses everything thank you thank you very much mr falton okay thank you councillors ever roberts we chairman we have a further request for clarification from councillor heather williams thank you very much councillor heather williams this may be more along the lines of what the uh you were referring to chairman obviously my um attention is to the notice that was said um again my apologies it's really hard and i know everyone's trying to cram things in while they're speaking and um with the internet the if i could have the the reference of the notice that you said and then the response um you may need to come from officers chairman and i appreciate that so through yourself if it was chairman you could get some clarity on on that issue please and one other thing we did have a site visit i've just remembered way back where we got elected so um we may we may just want to make that clear as well i i recall it well so i just the notice i mentioned is a notice under article 15 of the town and country planning development management procedure order england 2015 which is commonly referred to as the development management procedure order not that that's much shorter um and this is required for development that affects a public footpath i know councillor williams will remember the application at church at darrington this is one of the notices that needed to be published there it's specifically in regards to the public footpath and it alerts all users of the public footpath in the newspaper that the development will affect their public right of way thank you and so yes on on that point if we could therefore go to um either louis or to legal advice on whether or not that article 15 um notice was considered um as necessary and was implemented chris i see that you're before your camera sorry chair yes thank you through you just to say toby williams the team leader has just been looking to this point and you may wish to invite him to address this point please thank you hello toby welcome and if you'd like to introduce yourself hi afternoon everyone uh my name's toby williams and i'm the area development manager for this part of the district i have a had a look at um article 15 that mr falton um has referred to article 15 um relates in the first instance to an application for planning commission this is actually an application for a variation of a planning uh condition so i think the first point is actually whether or not this this um particular paragraph 15 is engaged i think my view is that it is not um engaged as you read it on the face um in any event if it were to be engaged i would read this article as whether or not a development in terms of it affecting a public right of way in terms of the alignment of that public away it's it's realignment of it or it's stopping up etc and this is not this proposal is not affecting that right of way in terms of its route um at all it is seeking um effectively to utilize fuse lane as anyone would do along with use lane if the commission were granted um for access for delivery vehicles etc so i don't think that um article 15 is engaged and even if it were um my interpretation is the public right of way in the in the in the sense of how its phrased is not affected thank you chair thank you councillor the williams would like to come back thank you if i if i could just come back on that to to make sure that you know i've got full clarity and and give me chairs maybe more appropriate for toby than for mr falton um but my recollection from before it the case that got referenced in ourington was that it was going to be no change the right way went through someone's garden it was going to have no impact in that respect other than the the change of use of the land to garden use um so that hasn't even lesser impact than what's being proposed here and yet we did we did do that that order so i am struggling with that explanation um that's that's been given in any offices or whoever can can really do something else because i appreciate it might not have had a material impact but if it's part of the process that we should have done then then that and given that we are facing um i have no that's one thing i am certain today we'll we'll face some sort of challenge either way on this application whatever the outcome um i would really like some some reassurance around process here thank you chairman thank you and perhaps if you could clarify i think what kind of things up there so one is whether it's sort of change of use around this or this is um if i'm trying to understand as well we're looking at temporary construction um discharge of condition around this one does that make a difference or or not toby can you help with that yeah i mean i would just reiterate that i i i really do not think that this is a process that is in is engaged through this particular uh so just for we all understand process you mean so you know actually taking an implementing article 15 notice is that what you mean by process yeah yeah so if you if you read if you read the article 15 says um to start off with an application for planning commission must be published publicized by the local planning authority to which the application is made in the manner prescribed by this article so that the first point chair is that this is not an application for planning permission it is an application to vary um a a condition and there is um i think there is a distinction there and the second point is whether or not it would affect that right of way the proposal is not in any event uh proposing to affect that right of way in any permanent manner um as i understand it and the council would not ordinarily as a matter of process if there were temporary impacts searches through construction think that this article were we're engaged at all uh chair and that's my interpretation of that particular part of the management procedure order um as i see it thank you thank you castle as you want to come back thank you i i do appreciate that um i'm just wondering chairman if if you will permit five minutes if toky was able to send the link around because as he says if we read it for ourselves it's not something we've got to offer fingertips i i very much would appreciate having five minutes to just read the article myself if that was possible um in the interest of everybody i think we'll ask chris cut about that but we could um it could be on the screen rather than round also happy with both of those options chairman i would just like a an opportunity to view it yes chair through you i'd suggest toby you're able to share the screen with that i am able to share my screen there with me can you zoom in a little bit for us yeah and and could he unhighlight it because it makes it slightly harder to read i'll perhaps that's it and and if you could just read it out for us toby that would be really helpful yeah publicity for applications for planning commission an application for planning commission must be publicized by the local planning authority to which the application is made in the manner prescribed by this article in the case of an application for planning commission for development which a is an eia application accompanied by an environmental statement b does not accord with the provisions of the development plan enforcing the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated or t would affect the right of way to which part three of the wildlife and countryside act 1981 public rights of way one applies the application must be publicized in the manner specified in paragraph three then paragraph three goes on to state an application falling within paragraph two paragraph two application must be publicized in accordance with the requirements in paragraph seven and by giving requisite notice by site display in at least one place on or near the land to which the application relates for not less than 21 days and by in b by publication of the notice in the newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the application relates is situated thank you um for that toby do you want me to stop sharing my screen chair yes thank you very much so members on that we've heard that the um we've heard from toby rooms who is the development manager for this area has given his interpretation of that challenge by by mr falton um steven reed do we want to hear anything else from you in terms of you know as committee we are guided by um our officers and by our legal counsel on these issues would you like to say anything additional or just support um thank thank you chair i would endorse the comments made by toby williams that this is not an application for a planning permission if the point was to have been taken it should have been taken when the planning permission was originally granted and the advice we received we have received is that um fuselain are now out of time to challenge the original permission in in relation to the points that they've sought to argue we're dealing with a section 73 application and we need to focus on that application so the the legal advice is very clear if um mr falton wishes to break case law he may have to do so in relation to an application for a future planning permission where he can take points as to the red line where he can take points as to even i don't think we we're not asking for you to provide us with reassurance as members of the committee because we're not you know we're not sort of legal experts in this so we are hearing from both you as our legal um advice and from the officer as well that you're giving us reassurance from your interpretation um of of policy and of these articles that what has been done in not engaging with article 15 um is fine you're giving us that reassurance i don't think you need to give advice to mr falton so sorry if we're fine there do we have the members that's as much as we can have which is we are hearing from at this point in time this is what our our officers are saying to us do we have any further clarification questions so the advice chair is that the any application for judicial review of the original planning commission is out of time i understood that thank you thank you steven okay so chairman yes um there's myself and councillor to me hawkins so the point i would like to make is um that that actually the main point is as to your camera on can't sorry yes sorry i do apologize that the main point is as um toby williams mentioned that as my my understanding um in the small way of being a footpath officer for my village is that section 15 relates to diversion or an establishment of a new route because the old route has become onerous or difficult or problematic for some reason or a stopping up of a route it does not cancel it but we're still better we're still in the clarification questions is yours i just wanted to clarify that not you to clarify the question to i just wanted to ask for clarification that my understanding of what toby williams is has said is that that the point that the point of law is that the section 15 relates to the stopping up or diversion of a footpath not to its occasional being occasionally being blocked by a lorry you know in the course of a construction can can we have clarification from toby williams that that is my understanding is correct toby could you chair yes councillor brabham and i i i would agree with your interpretation thank you very much toby thank you councillor dr to me hawkins uh thank you chair i think i was just going to say where are we here to discuss law are we here to discuss material planning considerations for an application to vary a condition i think we need to focus on that and if this whatever decision we make is going to be challenged it will be challenged and that is not for us to determine as is to determine this application to vary a condition thank you thank you very much and councillor martin can i see that you have requested speak but we um is that on this to mr falton or we would then move to the the next public speakers it's a clarification simply that uh i wanted to ask a lorry uh just wanted to ask of um either toby williams or that a lorry could at this moment without um would already have permission to approach the the site um as is proposed in this thing and so that the there is no actual change in what the what is allowed to do it's is only regulating how that is actually to be carried out toby through you chair yes uh that that's that's correct vehicles can travel down the access which is a public right way presently this is just seeking to manage that process to a development pro proposal um off use lane thank you and i think just as you know as councillor to me hawkins said so what we're looking at is the varying of a condition which is making specific reference to a traffic management plan you know specifically saying which of the traffic management plan that is in which it is then proposing um this way and in which the traffic that transport of the heavier items would come through a backwards motion down the lane so that's what we're that's what we are focusing on and councillor braddon do we have anybody else asking for clarification questions chair and councillor debba roberts has asked for to speak yes thank you chair and i appreciate that you've called me back in greatly appreciated can i put a very quick question to mr falton again please um i'd like to ask mr falton obviously you've heard um the officers legal i'm planning uh what they have had to say about um about the uh whether it would stand up in a court of law can i just confirm that the people that you have um taken legal advice from i presume that they have read uh what was being quoted themselves in full so the argument that has been put by officers is that that's about a planning application uh and therefore it's not appertaining to to what you're challenging your views please um i can say we were aware that officers might make such statements um and that was taken into account when we received legal advice if that's helpful thank you and what you said and sorry chairman and your experts mr falton have read that uh particular law policy in full haven't they absolutely yes thank you thank you thanks very much and thank you for your time again mr falton and we'll move on now with the other public speakers and so we do have um terms of the applicant and the agent we have patrick lanaway who is the agent patrick hello yes good afternoon chair because we can see you perfectly we can hear you as well and you understand you know very well the the procedures we've got three minutes for you i do i do and uh obviously in view of the discussion we've had to date i hope not to take up too much of that um i'm going to leave aside the legal issues because obviously they'll be rehearsed with the the officers of the council but what i do want to clarify is that um and i've started my three minutes just in case that's the purpose of the transport the traffic management plan which has been submitted and which is before you now is to provide very specific detail pursuant to the original condition which effectively set the parameters within which the traffic management plan should contain um and we've heard already through the um presentation by the planning officer the fact that it it contains very specific um requirements and proposals relating to for example the hours of traffic activity to ensure that that the importation exportation stages do not occur and during the afternoon period for an extended period taking into account obviously the the levels of activity elsewhere um it is based very much on the experience which has been gained from developing and building the properties which are already down huge lane and specifically therefore how best and how most appropriately the traffic management of this stage of the development can be managed so hence why areas have been laid out within the site for parking turning loading etc etc and only where very specifically required and as set out in the traffic management plan will it be necessary to occasionally very occasionally reverse under control as dr finney has said the um the need to bring in large scale and therefore low loaders or larger vehicles to reverse down there but as dr finney has said and as as set out in the traffic management plan they will be fully under the control of a signal um it also contains for example um a strategy and a an inspection regime to ensure that any damage caused by any part of the process is swiftly and appropriately maintained and repaired it sets out things like will wash effectively I consider that what we've put together in my SLR presented as the traffic management plan in association with the experience of the developer provides a very robust and as comprehensive as possible means of controlling parking turning deliveries both in terms of where how and when um one thing that also has um needs to be taken into account we believe is the fact that a lot of these issues were considered by the previous appeal uh in September 2018 and the findings of the inspector then have also been taken into account and the preparation of the traffic management plan was put together I'm obviously very happy to uh provide the clarification for any points that you you wish to uh to present thank you very much um Patrick for that and particularly within the time and for giving additional information which is always really important members do we have any um purification questions for mr lanoi there are no questions chairman thank you thank you very much so anyway for that and we will now move to the parish council long stand and parish council and invite Libby White again the clerk of pride council hello Libby thank you for keeping with us and be with us again um thank you chairman very quickly um with respect to the second application for fused lane i'm going to have to repeat you do have a thorough authorization yes yes area um with with respect to the variation of condition seven we'd like to reiterate long stand and parish council's concern over highway safety and it's noted by members that the plan shows that contractors will park at digital park on station road and make their way to fuse lane concern has been raised that contractors will not wish to walk the one mile from digital park and parking may be abused in the village long stand and parish council have not changed their views on the application and continue to be opposed to it however should this variation be approved the council would ask that the addition of the limited listing of streets where there is commitment that no parking will be undertaken be removed with a statement committing that parking on any roads in long stand will not happen or that the list of streets is extended to cover additional roads which could only be which could be used by the contractors under the paragraph 3.2.4 workforce parking thank you thank you very much and also for that specific and constructive recommendation if indeed this were to be minded to approve this thank you very much for any questions members chairman there's a request for clarification from Councillor Henry bachelor thank you councillor Henry bachelor thank you chairman i'm just reading the long stand and parish council's comments in the report which is point 11 i believe it's saying that the main reason for opposition was the safety aspect i.e. pedestrians and lorry sharing the same road i was going to ask lily if you thought that the inclusion of a signal person to guide the lorry down would have overcome that objection for the parish council possibly i do use that pass pretty much every day it is faded and is narrow it is only the width of a vehicle so if there is advancement that would make it a lot easier and safer for pedestrians yes thank you very much councillor brennan do we have anyone else uh yes we have councillor aileen wilson chairman thank you yes i just heard through you chair i have a question for liby white um we we've heard that the proposal is that work will be bought from the parking area by minibus to the um building site would that respond to the parish council's concerns if they use that yes um i think they've because they've also used that statement saying they won't park on the high street or mitchcroft road which nearby they've omitted other nearby streets so i think that's why they're suggesting to change the wording to either cover all the streets or just to say no parking but yes if they're going to come by minibus that would make a big difference thank you thank you for that and i'm i'm sure during the debate if members wanted to pick up um any of those recommendations that you have and liby they could make them do so um councillor brennan all right that there aren't any further clarification questions there are no further questions thank you very much um liby maybe like the clock belongs down to the parish council and we don't have any comments from a local member therefore members will move to the debate on this and remember that what we're looking at is to approve the application for the varying of condition seven specific to um the specific transport management plan um which is identified thank you do i have anybody you'd like to speak um chairman just for clarity um the recommendation is that we're looking at his own page 253 thank you very much councillor debba rovitz many thanks chairman well again it's a very complex day isn't it um and i'm really quite surprised to hear a leading councillor saying we don't need to take any notice of um legal implications here we just get on with it as a planning application we we've got serious reason to make sure that we um do not act unlawfully or break the rules uh because um to do so or should not do so risks putting us in financial and humiliating circumstances now we've been in the high court for a number of times recently where we've locked lost on every occasion because of what really appear initially to be minor breaches of not following planning law but nevertheless they've ended up uh in cases going against us and has been publicly in my opinion publicly humiliated and we can't go on this way so however tedious it may seem to some we have to make sure that we do you know cross the eyes and got the teas on whichever way around you're supposed to say that and it seems to me here that we i think councillor hella william said it one way or the other here this is going to end up in the court but i would rather end up in the probably planning appeals rather than the high court because i'm far from satisfied that um the council's advice that we took and i'm not on about our legal officers or our planning officers is actually will actually stand up in a court of law there also parts of the of this request that give me concerns um i really don't see workmen on a cold wintery day um getting parking their car and getting on a minibus and tootling with all their bags and baggage and all their toolkits down to this site a mile away you know we know what human nature is like they'll come in their cars and they'll all park at the end of the road and just walk down the lane i also think that actually that slurry backing down is um not something that i would want to see if that was a household there and it's going to inevitably cause um disputes because it will get in people's way people will be able to go up and down um to to in cars um while that's going on and we know how long these builders take you know it's not a five-minute exercise getting a load of roof trusses of lorry now i don't know whether that's a material reason to refuse this but i am concerned about just sort of these generalities in it which to me are going to cause a lot of problems maybe they can be overcome but my main concern is this legal situation and i really don't think we can um act in a manner where we know that there is a chance of it going to legal and going to the high court and us being found wanting again thank you so i will i will listen to the to the debate from my colleagues i haven't made it my mind chairman and be tweaked in between but i'm not happy good and just just to clarify so in terms of our material considerations as we've been directed in the papers it is around the safety issues the highway safety issues just to forget and we are focused on the varying of that condition in a traffic management plan which is looking at specifying to mitigate you know any of those circumstances we've been raised and we have heard from long standard parish council that it does to you know extend some of those deal with some of those things there was also a proposal or a recommendation from the parish council that could improve that as well and i'd like to sort of see if anybody would like to explore that as well within the debate i see um that Sharon you've put your camera on yes do you want to introduce yourselves to the to the committee Sharon and i see that you would like to speak perhaps in response to this thank you chair um yes so my name is Sharon brown i'm assistant director delivery um so i've obviously been working with the legal officer with respect to some of the legal issues arising from this application that have been raised um i would just confirm and reiterate that in response to the issues raised by councillor Roberts the council has taken its own external legal advice from Queen's council that is the position that we are relying on um and as you have said chair the key issues in relation to this application are the matters before the committee which is that this is a variation of a condition relating to a traffic management plan and the considerations of members needs to be on those matters thank you thank you very much for that Sharon and obviously each member will then themselves consider everything that they've heard and how how their confidence but as members we must one what's in front of us and two the advice that were being given um by both officers and our legal council councillor Braden who's next in the debate speak please sorry i was muted councillor dr teamie Hawkins chairman thank you and if we can keep this very much focused on the condition that's being varied and there's you know the specifics of that condition that's being varied um really i ask all members that that's where we focus our our attention councillor dr teamie Hawkins uh thank you very much chair um i'm sorry but i have to say this i refuse to have another councillor put words in my mouth in fairness something i did not say i think we all heard what i said and that was to focus on the material considerations okay and i will correct this we have not had many cases determined against us in court i would refer her to the reports that we took to scrutiny back in december now on the matter i think let's walk to me stop digging your hole can i can i just ask for respect what we did say at the very beginning in terms of the protocol was there is a way to respect to speak ask to speak and also that we won't talk over people because it's very very hard especially in a digital format for people to follow the the debate so councillor Hawkins if you were now focused on the specifics of the um of this condition thank you chair we have had um expert advice given to us we have had dr finney explain the situation to us um the reason for the change is because the applicant has learned from the work that he's done previously in building the the other two that are there now and what he's seeking to do is to make sure that the development does not impinge on those who are you know in the neighborhood and who are going to use the path hence this request for a variation and if we've had um uh you know if you're preparing uh something like this based on previous experience it doesn't happen again and you have the expert highways authority telling us that they are satisfied and we've had to look at this we've seen the pictures um i think for me it's difficult to say that we should refuse this the principle of development has been established it's a case of how the development is implemented and we need to take note of this and take note of the advice that we've been given and yes some have been to the site some have not but we've seen the pictures and nothing in those pictures suggests that this won't work there are concerns from the uh um parish council which i take um and that is workmen might not want to walk that way you know that longer distance but there are options to doing this and what i have found at least in my village is this if you have workmen who are parking where they shouldn't be parking as long as villagers know that and report it to the site manager the site managers do actually take action very swiftly i have had uh one site here where somebody actually was tough off the site and lost his job because he refused uh to do what was being asked in the traffic management plan so there are ways of dealing with these issues and i think um if we were to put conditions in that ensures that a um the community is able to have direct links with the site manager uh you know as a small liaison or you know however it is done through the parish council then i'm sure that there is uh opportunity for the requirements to be met monitored and enforced locally without even having to go to enforcement thank you thank you um who do we have next speaker chairman the next speaker is councillor Henry bachelor yeah councillor bachelor thank you chairman um as with the other applications today i mean i'm going to base my decision on the professional advice that we've been given we've heard from the council's planning officer the council's legal officer and external legal advice that the council have taken and also the county council highways department or who which say that this application to vary a condition is acceptable i don't think we're in a position to refuse what is in front of us today um as councillor Hawkins just said if there are breaches of the enforcement sorry if there are breaches of conditions relating to parking then i'm sure you know the people of long stand will be the first to to let the site manager and south camps planning enforcement team know that so as i said earlier i don't feel in a position to refuse this so as it stands i'll be supporting thank you chair thank you very much um everybody we've just gone past the two o'clock mark which is four hours i would like to if possible by affirmation agree that we um continue and extend this meeting once we finish this particular application we will have a break before then continue with the rest of the agenda so could i have um by affirmation your agreement that we extend the meeting agreed agree anybody who doesn't agree good thank you very much uh chairman the next speaker is councillor richard williams thank you councillor williams thank you very much chair um i should just say this that i i haven't actually been been to the site so i wasn't on the committee obviously um when this was considered before um i'm just going to say a few words about the legal issue but hopefully in a helpful way um i mean it's a really fascinating legal issue that's been raised about the relationship between applications variations uh the act and the management practice and you know i think all sites have really gone above and beyond in in getting their advice and we've got lots of fascinating documents that have been presented and as i say it really is an interesting legal issue but i think you know in my professional capacity i you know very interested in it obviously but i think it's a point where we've got evidence that reasonable people disagree um it's an unclear question as to what what the answer to this is and i don't think actually we can or should try and resolve that legal question in um in in this committee there's a genuine dispute about what the law means how these different bits of law relate to each other and i think ultimately that can only really be decided by the court um so um i'm not sure we can actually do that i have a lot of sympathy for the fuselain position um but but as i say i don't actually think there's much more that could be done to resolve that internally within this committee on the substance um i have sympathy with what the parish council has said and i do have some concerns about highway safety um i would be interested if we could explore taking those forward particularly having a guide if if um lorries are reversing up and down that lane there's a public right away on it i think there is a genuine highways safety issue there so i would be keen um to hear from the officers if we could maybe toughen it up and take take account of some of those parish council concerns so it's the substantive issue of highway safety that obviously i think we need to decide on on that i do have some concerns i'd be reassured if the parish council points could be addressed thank you and as i understand that councillor ritchie williams what we have heard is that that is within the traffic management plan is to have the signal person going and parish council did recognize that as that could be something that further mitigated what they did ask long term parish council is whether or not um it could be extended to be all streets included in the non parking or extend the list of those streets sorry if i didn't make my clear yes yes that that was my point thank you then maybe we could ask that the case officer that whether that is a possibility uh chairman i i'm the next person to request to speak yeah could we just ask for the case officer um louis are you able to thank you chair i'm free you um i just want to clarify this point so in the traffic management plan the contractor parking is dealt with on digital park and there will be a mini bus to ferry them from that to the site i believe what the parish council is referring to is the parking of delivery vehicles um not contractor parkings contracts parking is dealt with so if i would it be helpful if i shared my screen just so we were looking at the same thing it's just bear with me so i just want to refer to paragraph 3.2.4 which is workforce parking and it's this um line here that the parish council is referring to so that says that no delivery vehicles will park on the high street mitchcroft road or fused lane to maintain access way to the site and keep existing properties clear um we could amend that to include all streets within lond stanton we could include that within the proposed amended wording of condition seven could we just have some advice from dr john finney about that and whether that would be standard practice thank you john are you able to just elaborate on that can you hear me see me not i think i've stopped sharing your screen apologies yeah there we go thank is it all right can you see see me now can hear you john but not see you we didn't see you yeah i will i will no okay as long as you can hear me that's the important point i mean from the highway service perspective if um the contractors they develop is content i see no reason why they shouldn't be i see no reason why they shouldn't be a blanket ban as mr tomlinson i suggested across the streets within lond stanton it it would be enforceable because clearly the residents would see where the vehicles were going and coming from and if they breached that then that would be a matter obviously for the planning authority to enforce but i say from the highway service perspective it wouldn't be a significant issue good thank you so um what i would like to do members is that we we move um to a vote on that change to add that in terms of the traffic management plan so we can you know within if we were minded to approve to vary this condition according to that specific traffic management plan that there is a change as we've just heard to that specific clause for the delivery vehicles to be a blanket ban on all streets um chairman we would have to say with the exception of digital park that's for the construction vehicles yes we have to have somewhere for the chippies and the plasterers to park their cars so are they going to be allowed to do these digital park as well if i could chair for you so we would word in such a way so i think contractor parking is dealt with in the traffic management plan because of digital park i think the wording would want to add to the condition in line with what members would like would be notwithstanding paragraph 3.2 for in relation to delivery vehicles and then go on to say that they shouldn't park within any streets of London Stanton sorry so so forgive me i'm just trying to think practically speaking how these people who are properly doing building are we we must enable them to park somewhere if i could for you chair um this is in relation to delivery vehicles and not contractors so this would be people delivering materials to the site right sorry point taken i understand sorry sorry i misunderstood good um chris you've asked to speak chris carter ah okay sorry chair yes louis has covered that point i think we just we've got those two issues haven't we and we've got sort of the contractor vehicle and that was the backing down and it was whether or not the parking and that's delivery park and this one is specifically about delivery vehicles that are coming in um and so i think as we've got so in relation to 3.2.4 within the traffic plan notwithstanding that that they shouldn't park on any of the streets that's what you're proposing therefore louis toby i see you got your camera on are you helping us with that i'm trying to try and assist committee if i can um i i have read this plan um i do recall that there was um one particular street near north stow that was identified for these vehicles to lay up in um louis i'm not sure if you're you're able to kind of find that particular part of the plan that you could show um members but i think this has been covered by the um applicants in the plan or already from recollection recollection recollection for you child just share my screen to just show everybody this so it is within the traffic management plan toby is correct um it talks about in terms of hcp offsite parking we've identified a section of sterling road in north stow which is currently utilised by ferris companies delivering materials including ready mick well as it goes on in around north stow um um i think that's fine but i don't see any concern with adding the extra bit that members want into the condition because it really just makes sure that it's clear to everybody i'd support that did you want me to just draft what it would look like so i can show members please that would be excellent thank you very much continue with other with other um anybody who wants to make other contributions to the debate while louis is helping us to to draft what that motion would look like um chairman i think i was the last person to speak i think um if that's okay chairman through you yes thank you um my feeling is that um i'm confident having looked at the countryside planning act uh while we were talking i'm confident that the advice that toby's given us and the legal matter is dealt with that this this doesn't relate to the temporary dealings with you know movements of vehicles along fuselain um so i'm confident that we're dealing with that in an appropriate manner and i'm relieved that we've taken up the the point that the parish council made about parking and i think this solution that's been suggested is very helpful and i think that will be great and be good when um mr tomlinson has the wording um so now i am confident to approve this application thank you thank you councillor badenham um may i chair yes councillor i wonder if we could put an informative uh regarding lives in between parish councils and residents if any um breaches um are noted so that the site manager can be contacted immediately to get the matter resolved absolutely i'd endorse that as well chairman sorry chair thank you very much um first things easier for people all around within the community and obviously we will come in as enforcement if we need to but it's usually easier for the site manager to deal with these issues there and then thank you councillor hawkins so um louis if you could respond to that as well whether an informative could be added apologies i was on mute um we can add an informative yes i'll just share my screen now just to show the proposed word and so i'll just read it out so the development here by permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the traffic management plan prepared by slr consulting version final one and dated december 2019 notwithstanding the detail contained within the traffic management plan in relation to the parking of the delivery vehicles no delivery vehicles during the construction phase will park on any streets within the village of london stanton thank you very much and so i think we'll take one each each one in in turn in terms of these different proposals um and so what i would committee what i'd like to do is i would like to propose that as a motion that we accept this to be included within the recommendations for approval do i have a seconder yes chairman i'll second that that's councillor bradnan thank you um knowing obviously that we haven't yet gone to we're not yet at the vote whether or not we are going to um accept and approve the officer recommendation for the varying of the condition this is about what we're voting on if we when we get to that point so this is about a motion to include the wording on the screen within the recommendation as part of the conditions seconded by councillor bradnan um can i take that by affirmation or shall i do a roll call i agree actually i think because we have got some people have registered concerns about everything i'm going to do a roll call i've just realised in terms of this just the the legal proceedings of the whole thing have been um registered so councillor henry bachler yeah i'm in favour chair for councillor bradnan um for councillor martin carne and for councillor peter fein against councillor to me hawkins or councillor debba rovitz against councillor heather williams against councillor richard williams for councillor ilyn wilson for councillor nick right for and myself councillor kippa hallings for that's eight in support and three against so that motion is carried as part of the recommendation once we get to the vote the next if i understand councillor to me hawkins you would like to propose that an informative is included um would you like to say exactly that but it's about including within the informative that there is some kind of liaison established between the parish council and the site manager um in order to deal with any problems that are rising immediately which does not take away the responsibility for enforcement of the council uh i think uh you've got that right chair good thank you so you'd like to propose that is there anybody would second that i'm quite happy to second that chairman that's councillor bradnan thank you so if we go to the vote on that um second change councillor henry bachler for councillor bradnan for councillor martin kahn for councillor peter fein for councillor to me hawkins for councillor debba rovitz for councillor heather williams for councillor dr richard williams for councillor ilyn wilson for councillor nick right for myself councillor pippel helings for so that is unanimous um in terms of that being adopted as part of the recommendation um we're about to move to the vote but i see that we do we have any other requests to speak as part of the debate before we go to the vote councillor bradnan um i think the only one we have additionally i think councillor to me hawkins has already spoken but i think we've got the request from councillor martin kahn thank you councillor martin kahn yeah it's certainly very brief to say that uh i mean generally uh satisfied with the proposals as amended but but in terms of the legal issue uh the there is a certain ambiguity as councillor williams has presented there will always be a certain amount of the uncertainty in terms of planning law we have been advised that it's that it is okay as the best of their knowledge we mustn't be afraid of taking decisions always upon the possibility of some uncertainty about the legal law where we can get we only can get the best advice and the best of our knowledge and i don't want us to become mice rather than um men or women so to speak um so uh i just feel that that that that needs to be considered in dealing with our consideration um how we decide thank you councillor martin kahn i just think that you know we are committee members we are not experts in in planning law all that we can do i don't know if it's a it's a necessarily a measure of sort of bravery it's about this is what we need to do we we need to base ourselves on the council that we receive which is from our officers and from legal counsel and they have contracted independent legal advice um that that's all we can do as committee members and i think as councillor richard williams said if that is then taken to to be contested to later stage and we all learn from that then then fine but at the moment as committee members i think what we must do is each of us now hear what we've heard um from our own from the advice that's being given to us and make a decision based on that the decision is around the varying of a condition which is condition seven it's on page 253 which is that we approve the application subject to the following conditions and informative and we have also just added a further condition and a further informative to that and i'll now go to a roll call um to see all of those who are for this recommend officer recommendation to approve the application for the varying of condition seven councillor henry bachelor for chairman councillor nebradnam for councillor martin carne for councillor pewter fein for councillor dr toomey hawkins for councillor deborah roberts um i don't think i've ever been called a mouse before maybe a witch but not a mouse um and i am going to vote against it for the reason that um i think we have to take the legal question into serious consideration my understanding has always been as a deborah roberts we did i'm really sorry because you do know we're just at the roll call of the voting them and i don't want to lose that thread and i i think we did hear in your intervention how we can see that i'm going to continue with the roll call councillor you are against and i understand that councillor he doesn't i think it's all true of iris councillor age rob and we can't do that i am going to ask that we do not speak over each and i'm going to continue with the roll call we're in the middle of the vote so it's for against or an abstention councillor heather williams um on the officer device because i fall for councillor dr richard williams for councillor aileen wilson for councillor nick right for and myself councillor tipper halings for i make that 10 and one thank you guys share i will i will count those up myself i think we'll do so that's 10 and four and one against and so that is moved for the approval of the varying of condition seven with that application thank you members it's um we're doing a bit of a marathon here thank you to all the members of the public thank you to those that make representations on that agenda item it's 224 we've gone past the four hour rate we agreed to do that so what i'd like to do now is move that we have a break and i'm right in asking 15 minutes for that break or does anybody is that okay yes chair we don't have to close sorry we don't have to close down do we chairman just leave our machines on that's what i understand so we don't actually officially close the meeting so everyone just sort of mute their microphones and their cameras thank you very much chairman thank you everybody so um 225 so that will be at 240 we will resume with the next agenda item thank you everybody for that that was a tough legal issue but we came down to sort of focusing on what the issues around that one and a long morning thank you take a break as the break 15 minutes long i'm not going to put a slide up i'm just going to leave it as is it'd be a lot easier to resume when we come back so thank you Liam yeah just be aware everyone that your microphones and cameras are still being broadcast so like mute them and uh switch your cameras off thanks thank you i'll do that myself now other things so and enforcement so nothing nothing that's going to engender a lot of debate oh councillor wilson we can hear you oh and then councillor bradnam so it's 240 um we'll just check if everybody's back so that we can continue with the agenda so i'll go through a little roll call and just see if we're all here councillor henry bachelor afternoon hello councillor bradnam i can see is here councillor martin carne yeah thank you can't really hear you councillor martin carne that we could councillor peter fein councillor dr toomey hawkins present chair thank you councillor deborah rovitz here chair thank you councillor heather williams yeah thank you dr ritchard williams yeah thank you councillor lume wilson here councillor nick right present thank you um so it was just councillor peter fein councillor peter fein are you with us i'm just texting oh who he is councillor peter fein you with us i've just texted councillor fein councillor peter fein are you with us now chairman i've just tried to call him and got his answer phone so oh there you are hello thank you councillor peter fein you're with us yeah who hand signals chairman i could see it's amazing peter are you are you with us if you can just sort of either say yes in the chat box or um say yes you've been ignored chairman he's there hi peter i can see you when you put your video on can you just are you able to speak yes thank you you can hear you can hear everything i'm assuming peter you can take fully part fully in the agenda items there thank you everybody so we're going to restart now with agenda item nine um hello Sharon thank you gender item nine which is something i think really really important it's wonderful to have this in front of us now as planning committee it's something that's been of um great concern for all of us of real interest of interest to parish councils um and things that have been even brought up in the meeting today in other meetings which is about you know the way we do business and the confidence that we have in the procedures that we have um our processes and our relationships to make sure that we're doing the job that we need to do and i think we all recognize the need for this review and we have the report we've received the report and that's now in front of us so Sharon brand whose assistant director delivery um is going to give a little presentation about that so we can consider it what we're being asked to do committee in terms of the recommendations on page three hundred and eighty um as to note the content and recommendations are set out in the planning advisory service report and note the arrangements put in place for a group to oversee implementation and you know recommendations around um the recommendations within the report and also agree that an update report um come back here to us in planning committee in April Sharon thank you very much for you want to give us an overview of this thank you thank you chair and good afternoon everyone um just to provide some background in relation to this item so south cambridge district council and cambridge city council jointly commissioned the planning advisory service to undertake a review with south cambridge district councils and cambridge city councils planning committees as well as the joint development control committee and this was very much in the context of the bringing together of the shared planning service the creation of the shared planning service and the ongoing wider service improvement program which does include a number of process and procedural updates and alignments the south cams district council review has now been completed and the report is in front of members and appended to this report and the planning advisory service report starts at page 385 of the agenda papers um the paragraph 11 of the officer reports at page 380 of the agenda papers sets out the process carried out by the planning advisory service including interviews with members officers and full parish council focus group sessions were also held and so that process was taking place from July through September just looking at the report itself there were a lot of positives in the report in terms of the feedback from the planning advisory service i'm just going to highlight a few threads um the planning advisory service particularly comment on the council's quick move to the virtual committees in the context of covid and commend the guidance and information available on the council's website and the effectiveness of incorporating public engagement into that process um some councils haven't done that which the planning advisory service note uh the revised chairs delegation process which has been operating for a while now the planning advisory service note that that provides an improved level of transparency members have a good understanding of their roles and a good grasp of the plan led system and local plan policies and good accountability for decisions in terms of national performance indicators quality of performance which means that there are a low number of appeal decisions lost against the council and the speed at which the council deals with planning applications is improving the planning advisory service also note that the committee has demonstrated an ability to take difficult decisions on large-scale strategic site planning applications however as expected there are a number of improvements that are highlighted in the report um that we need to focus on going forward and the report sets out a number of recommendations so i'll just highlight some of the areas uh that the planning advisory service indicate where there is scope for further improvements i would very much emphasize that some of the points highlighted in the report have already been um taken on board by officers through other processes so we're already part of the um chair planning services ongoing service improvement plan so items such as for example improvements to officer reports officer presentations and the need for more pre application presentations to planning committee um there are other issues that are highlighted in the report that there is a need for more collaborative working between members and officers as we move forward and there are suggestions about how we can use the member development program that we've already put in place to assist with that um we can also learn from best practice from other authorities by reviewing i think jointly uh members and officers of planning committees and their performance so there are a range of strategic issues and then there are some more what i would term housekeeping issues uh some of the actions uh suggestions as i've said have already been implemented um some of those are in process so the further engagement with parishes which is also a key issue that's highlighted in the report we have the three area development management teams now and we do have a program of engagement with the parish councils there will be some quarterly meetings that will be set up during 2021 and we will be focusing on some of those key issues of parish concern uh through those meetings throughout the year so there are nine recommendations stated within the past report or until the terms of reference have been ratified by the planning committee um four minutes will be taken when the group meets and these minutes will be made available to all elected members and the public um chairman could i can i um just suggest um Heather with respect to grammar you might want to change in at the very end of your item one you just refer to chair men in the plural uh not chair mans and then the other would be um that the group should act as one voice in other words um it's not they will report back to at the end of point two it would be okay we are now live as we were so i guess if you wanted to repeat the four minutes before we uh like the connection was dropped then um do so but yeah you're 100 live and the audio and vision is now working thank you chairman should i reread my motion and then move my motion in that case grammar aside chairman sorry Heather sorry i'm sorry would you like me to read the motion and then move the motion as we're now live yes just one moment so i'm sorry i was looking at me so liam are we now live i'm afraid i missed that yes sorry just to confirm again um yeah you are now live as as you were before so yeah both sound and vision are all all going well and is yeah all yeah you're good thank you good yes so we now have that in front of us um yes and so councillor Williams if you'd like to read the motion which is there thank you chairman so the motion that i am moving is that planning committee supports the establishment of a joint member and officer planning improvement group and one the planning improvement group will elect a chairman as its first order of business and that the chair be an elected councillor it's gone off the screen which i'm reading from it's an elected councillor and given the powers protections and authority that other chairmans of this council received by the constitution the planning number two the planning improvement group will produce a draft set of terms of reference which are to include which committee or public meeting they will report back to three no actions will be taken by the group outside of the scope stated within the past report or until the terms of reference have been ratified by the planning for minutes will be taken when the group meets and these minutes will be made available to all elected members and the public in moving this motion chairman committee members i would i would like to stress that it is an attempt that we can procedural issues to to one side in the in the faith that they will be addressed by this process we don't want to distract from the issues but we have to realise that this group is not something that this establishment is committed within the constitution which is completely new and therefore i feel from a governance point of view it would not be responsible for us to to carry on without knowing that information or knowing that information is due imminently i have utmost respect and i believe that our head of transformation is a fantastic officer however to have him as a chairman in my view would be to put him in a conflicted position which i do not believe is right for us to do and he would have an arm behind because as an officer as opposed to an elected member he will not have the full powers that we would have if we put in that position so fairness and protection of the officer and to ensure that this process is has teeth as it were and has all the powers and abilities that we would normally see as we're following a task and finish model which does not allow an officer to be a chairman i believe it's it's right that we have full collaboration but that it should be politically driven by those accountable to the public because we need to have confidence in this and we start from the basis of getting off on the right foot and we do that in the best way of knowing that the governance arrangements of this are good and they are tight and that all of us knows that this will be coming back to the public and then we may be able to rebuild that trust not only amongst ourselves but with our parish councils and members of the public also and so that is my reasoning and i hope that this will be supported as it's mainly about process governance and transparency and i look forward to the debate where we can discuss the issues that everything from the report thank you chairman thank you um before we go into sort of the debate of this motion do you have somebody who's seconding that motion i do councillor nick right okay thank you very much and what i'm noting is in terms of you know keep us really on focus in terms of recommendations to committee in terms of what we're looking at in this debate you know are the issues around the planning advisory report this is point b on page 380 which is noting the arrangements put in place for the group the task and finish group to oversee implementation of the report recommendations that's the context around that as the williams is you know referred to the process and governance of that group um do we have do you want to take it from the screen now councillor williams oh whoever's chairman it's not myself the Chris party thank you very much yes um councillor bradham do we have anybody who'd like to now speak to this motion um chairman yes um we do have councillor henry bachelor i also had some small grammatical points that the motion that that councillor williams might like to take on board i don't know whether you want to take those i think and also i would ask so sorry councillor nick right i should have asked you know if you're seconding it when you would like to speak um thank thank chairman and actually i was down to speak straight after heather williams i was against i would like to second the motion and presumably heather will have a chance to sum up at the end so i'm quite willing to speak straight away if you would thank you very much and so i'd like to you to ask you to invite you speak now councillor right thank you um and this is such an important issue because as members of the council we it's in all our interest to have an excellent planning service and there's no doubt over the last couple of years we've we've lost confidence of our parish councils which has always been fragile um and we just want to come up with a scheme that will encourage that to come back um we need to be viewed as transparent so as members we're all working in the same direction and with that in mind you know we want something that will have teeth and make the right recommendations to the right group whether it be cabinet scrutiny or just the planning committee uh so very important we get this right i think councillor williams is spot on but it should be chaired by a councillor rather than an officer because it does put the officer in a difficult position um with his fellow officers uh in the future if he if he or she is chairing it so i'm absolutely fully behind this motion and i'd commend it to the planning committee thank you very much councillor broughland chairman there were other speakers thank you to councillor right for pointing out so we did have a request to speak from councillor peter fein and then councillor richard williams i believe before you councillor peter fein thank you chair i sympathise with what councillor right has just said about putting an officer in a difficult position to share this group i think however that um this doesn't get wide enough actually and one of the first things identified in the report is that we are trying as we all know to integrate a shared planning service across the two authorities with three planning or rather development control committees um and uh there are going to be some lessons that we can usefully learn from each other across the city boundary uh i think we have to accept that what i i think we're calling the pig now which i assume is our way of um planning implementation group so it can't be to fein i think we wouldn't use that acronym and it's one thing i was going to mention um and i think Sharon in her introduction talked about the planning development group given the association with the acronym let's call it the development group for now shall we chairman i hadn't really thought that acronym would stick um it's the planning development group which i think is uh what is recommended in paragraph 14 on page 382 i would suggest it has to go rather wider than just south cams and the recommendations it makes will be just that i don't think they will be recommendations just to this committee and don't see this as being within the orbit of this committee even if it were confined to south cams issues i also think we have to bear in mind that this happens against the background of very significant changes in the whole planning system and that it may not be possible to resolve this in a satisfactory way within say the six month period of a task and finish group um we may need to set up a working group to review this over a period and make gradual changes the decisions on which will have to be taken by others and not by this committee thank you Peter just just for the record as well it's being proposed as a three month group which is what was um supported you know at this scrutiny committee meeting um just to clarify that point that's what i'm saying there thank you very much who's next to speak um the next one is the council richard williams chairman yeah council richard williams thank you very much chair uh yeah i'd like to support the motion that the other councillor williams has put forward um it does consent me a little bit that this this committee's got no constitutional status um so um it isn't really clear what rules it would operate under and if it did operate under the default standing orders of the council and the chair would get a casting vote um on the committee in the event there was a disagreement or a split a split vote um and i really think that's an invidious position to put an officer in um to give them a casting vote um and potentially a variety group of elected councillors um i really don't think we should be doing that so um again i'm sure the officer is more than capable of chairing this kind of committee it's just for um democratic and constitutional reasons i don't really think it's appropriate for officers to do that it's also worth bearing in mind what our constitution says about the role of officers um the role of officers being to um advise um elected members but the constitution says it's the role of elected members to take the policy decisions and the decisions um you know that operate the way the council um runs so um i don't really think it would be appropriate nothing as i say about the individual officer um but i don't think it would be um appropriate either given the role of officers and members and the problems around things like the casting vote um for an officer to chair um the committee so um i support uh the motion um that's been put forward thank you very much thank you cancer rich rilliams um and i do as i do understand i think we do have a legal monitoring officer with us so if there were any questions around any of the constitutional legal issues that people would like to clarify before um moving to a vote on the motion we could also do that who's asking to speak next council to me hawkins chairman council to me hawkins thank you chair um i think first of all perhaps we need to make some clarifications here this group of uh people looking at these recommendations are not going to be making decisions this is essentially a task and finish group which is looking at the recommendations made in the pass report and then providing to the administration their recommendations on how we should go about implementing um these recommendations that to me is their task is to say look these are the recommendations that they've made uh speak to whoever they need to speak to members other members of the planning committee um staff etc planning you know parish councils get all that information together bring ideas forward as to how we implement these recommendations it's not for them to make any decisions at all so in that light i'm sorry but i don't see that the planning committee at this stage can decide that it will be to put it in some phrase i've heard in the past george and jury frankly its role is to or the role of the task and finish group is to actually help the council to bring the ideas together as to how we implement the recommendations in a way that improves the service obviously um and so i think for me um this this motion i think is the wrong one to put forward because it's not a decision making committee it's a task and finish group taking forward the recommendations from the pass report thank you thank you who do we have next um we have councillor peter fein or i think he may have already spoken councillor peter fein you you did come up with what um a conclusion do you have anything else to say to the motion itself you i suspect my previous contribution may not have had much impact um because i have already spoken thank you no no it was just i knew you'd spoken before i wasn't sure if you wanted to speak again so the next person is councillor Deborah Roberts thank you councillor Roberts thank you very much chairman i don't think that this actually should be a contentious issue because i you know i've been thinking about this since the report came out and i'm really impressed by the positive um attitude that we all seem to me now taking yeah we've got various little things we think you know how did that happen how did this happen but like you know listening to Sharon ever so positive you know she's really facing what she needs to do and i think members are of this at the same ilk as well but it isn't a task and finish group i think we really need to clarify that it's not a task and finish group it's a new idea it's a new group um formation that does not fit in with the constitution and we can't break the constitution so therefore we we make it so that it will fit in that we that we don't break the rules it's not a task and finish group because um it's a joint working group of both councillors and officers or you know participating in inputting so it's it's it is different and it's got to be treated in a different form so to me it's quite a good idea today to say as we are doing we support it which we which we do very very much um but what we need to see is is uh it's terms of reference and you know every committee on South Cannes has a term of reference this is not a committee at the moment and it's a new idea so it has to have terms of reference and you know like the other people have spoken we do have confidence we don't always agree with officers but we have confidence that they are giving us good advice but our tasks are different it's for as council Richard William said it's for officers to advise based on their professional qualifications and abilities and it's for us to listen but make the decisions and I think it would be an onerous thing to actually have a chairman from the officers and I think that puts them in an invidious position because there will have to be the spokesman and you know as I said that isn't the task of the officers and you know we all know that we really are expected there have been naughty at times not to criticise officers and what have you in public but you know this is this is not fair on officers so I think um please let's all just accept that we want good to come of this we believe that good can come of this it's it's overdue when it's needed and we all know that but now that we are um being positive about it let's be just let's just make sure we do it properly let's have it this new committee with the terms of reference with a chairman of it who's a councillor who's accountable to the public um and let's just get on with the job because you know they will bring back the terms of reference to us we can see what it is if there's something that we think's missing we can add it but they also the main thing to remember is at the end of the day this group is working to provide this planning committee with the right format to do our job properly in the future and to improve on ourselves we can all improve um and that's what this is all about it's about moving forward now we've accepted the report which is good and bad it's it's a mixture but let's just get on and and take this motion forward it's not stopping anything it's absolutely not stopping anything it's been it's about it's all joining up thank you chairman thank you very much um so I would just like I think if we can clarify some perhaps of the the issues that have been raised um and as I say if we're looking this is one of the issues around process and we would like to also talk about the substantive issues of content of the report and make sure that planning committee feeds into it I understand that Rory McKenna is with us and he's our legal monitoring officer that can help so there have been a couple of issues raised here Rory and I wonder if you could help us one whether the remit of this is purely around planning committee or whether the recommendations that go around planning committee two whether planning committee can make this kind of decision when a scrutiny committee has already supported the establishment of this as I understand under task and finish I think um conditions you were saying Sharon but not you didn't use word as a task and finish group but if you could clarify that for us Rory whether or not there is a constitutional risk to um an officer chairing that as has been um questioned here um and any of the other constitutional concerns that were were raised around this and also from my own point I would just like to query whether in the motion it's um saying that the terms of reference would then need to come back to planning committee to be ratified and whether that indeed is a constitutional um necessity given the amount of time between um also different committee meetings um yeah so in terms of the remit of planning committee to be able to question um one the constitutional basis for this group and the way that the group is established thank you Rory thank you chair so chair if I can sort of assist me being given the uh given the background obviously this has come via the planning advisory service so they have made it very clear via recommendation eight that uh this member an officer group should be set up um on a task and finish model so it's not a task and finish group but their recommendation was that it should be set up on a task and finish model now um members will be familiar with task and finish groups and how they operate and but it's quite clear that the intention for PAS was that this group should not have that formality so in terms of decisions being taken by the group it's my understanding and and and I think it's clear that the terms of reference would be set by the group at the at the same meeting um but it's uh it's clear from the motion that is being put forward in recommendation three that the terms of reference uh would not be outside of the scope of the numerous recommendations that were contained within the PAS report and if they were outside of those recommendations then they would come back to planning committee but I think the purpose of the group is set up to consider each and every one of those recommendations and I would imagine that when the group first meets one of the jobs they will have to do is to try to ascertain which recommendations should go where but I think it's probably fairly clear that a lot of them will come back to planning committee in any event but that would be a job for the for the group in terms of who chairs the meeting um as I say that's that's a matter for for members really um I think that um the the purpose of this group is to um create better decision making in in all aspects it's to assist the assist the the the planning committee as I understand it the group will be taking decisions as such but they will be making recommendations back to planning committee or whatever committee may be required to consider each of the the recommendations now um the group wouldn't have voting powers as such so I think the best example I can give is recently involved in the constitutional task and finish group um which was a cross-party member group now there was no decisions no formal votes taken there was areas of disagreement and and challenge and what happened in that instance that and I must add that they were very few and far between thankfully but in areas where they might be disagreements um it though those views would be put back to the relevant committee so if there was a split decision for instance that would be reported back as such it wouldn't be reported back that there was a vote and that this was kind and that wasn't it would simply be reported back that these were the views of the members of the group and it would then ultimately be a matter for that committee to make a decision as to to what recommendation they would they would then follow and adopt obviously officers would have would have no voting powers um I think that um you know whether an officer chairs it whether a member chairs it that's obviously a matter for that's obviously a matter for for members I'm not sure if that covers all your questions and if it doesn't I'll be happy to come back in but hopefully that provides some clarification thank you so what we're saying is in terms of the risk concerned around decision making what we're saying this isn't a formal task and finish group has the sort of modality sort of the model as I understand um in terms of it has specifically you know it's got something to do and it's got a time period within which to do that and it would need to anyway within that first meeting look at you know how it's going to undertake that remit that it has you know and establish it's in terms of reference within that first meeting um and so as I said the motion is not looking to undo the establishment of the of this group within that but the concerns around the risk to an officer for an officer member group that there are there because it's not a decision making body and it's not a formal task and finish group those those don't have concerns for you they don't know that's that that's my that's my personal view you know but as you said it's a matter for members if members feel that they would like that group to be chaired by another member obviously that's within their gift yeah okay and in terms of where it reports back to that's something as well so partly you're saying this would you know be deciding which are the most relevant areas which could be planning or scrutiny or or council yes I believe yes I have to say I think what would probably happen at the first meeting is that those those members and officers on the group would it would be I envisage this group to be very much discussion based actually and I think that there will be a discussion about what would be the most appropriate committee to consider any of the the recommendations or discussions back from that group and I think that a lot of them will be planning committee I can see a lot of those recommendations within the past report coming back to planning committee but as I say the group may have a view on on on others where it's not entirely clear where the decision making lays and it may also be that the group said that not only for instance do they want to refer a matter to a particular committee for decision but they may also determine it appropriate to report back on certain matters to cabinet for instance but that would depend on the discussions in the nature of the recommendation the final thing was in terms of who ratifies the terms of reference and in the motion at the moment it's saying that would have to come back to planning committee to ratify so it says I think in number three it says no actions will be taken by the group outside of the scope stated in the past report and it says here or well or until the terms of reference possibly one would hope that if the terms of reference of the group are within the recommendations contained within the past report then I hope you know would it be necessary to bring those back to the planning committee but that might be something for a proposal of the motion to consider thank you okay and I see do we have another clarification question for Rory before we then go on to the other speakers who've requested to speak um chairman we can I sorry can I would you mind would you permit me to jump the queue I just wanted to point out that I have another meeting to go to at which I must leave this meeting at quarter to four four um but I just wanted to ask um Mr McKenna my understanding is that it's not for this committee to be determining how the task and finish group work the whole purpose of it being a a task and finish group is that the task and finish group decides the terms of reference and as you said that would be one of the first things that they decide and it would be for the that first meeting to determine how they were going to work within the recommendations that have been made by the past report they would never make a decision as you say they would only ever make a recommendation and they would determine which committee that particular recommendation was appropriate to to be sent to thank you Chad we're just I'm going to clarify again for everybody so we're it's not a task and finish group yeah can we just make sure we're using the right terminology because there's a lot of we're going into some sort of weeds here around what that is but thank you Rory forgive me but at scrutiny and overview I understood it was but I may have misunderstood it at scrutiny and overview I understood it was setting up a task and finish group can I can I just come in there because I think it's probably helpful just to read from the recommendation of the scrutiny report so the the recommendation of the 7b of the report said that the scrutiny and overview committee support the establishment of a joint member officer planning improvement group on a task and finish model to oversee the implementation of the the recommendations within the past report so just to be clear and I think possibly it's the use of the language within the past report of task and finish which is it's it's designed to be helpful but I think it's maybe caused a bit of confusion but it's not a task and finish group in the way members I think would know and understand task and finish groups but it it's one that was created on the model one I think the bottom line is if you look into the constitution there's nothing within the constitution which talks about a group of this nature so we've had to sort of couple together as best we can and within the spirit of what past have been asking us to achieve and just if it's helpful just recommendation contained within the past report does actually state so it talks about examining the possibility of creating a joint member officer planning improvement group on a task and finish model to take the improvement recommendations contained in this report forward alongside other necessary development areas so that's the that's the exact wording of the of the past report I hope that's helpful good thank you um so um can we can I also sort of can I ask councillor Henry bachelor when councillor nebradan goes would you be able to take over the the vice chair support in terms of the speaker order yeah I'm only a sub but absolutely I will do it thank you very much thank you and so can we go to the next clarification for um for rory I know we've got a list of speakers if we just should we just ask for any clarifications for rory I think the next person who asked to speak councillor martin kahn councillor martin kahn yes a lot a lot of the points were raised came up in the previous uh clarification uh but by rory uh basically I'm concerned about the the protocol here I've not still not quite clear how the group was set up who is therefore going to be the um who they're going to report to uh who makes the decisions whether this um it seems to be a dog's breakfast at a confusion um it would be clear nice to be I'm not sure that planning committee could make decisions on the issues that are involved does that not have to go to full council how would the reporting proceed to go could you give me some clarification about the the constitutional arrangements here I I think the truth is a lot of these matters are going to be resolved once the group meets to be you know you know we have to get the groups sort of up and running and once they meet as I say a lot of these these issues will be resolved I can absolutely 100 percent confirm there's no need for this to go to full councils in many respects the group probably could have just been set up by by officers of operational management but it was felt that members could could feed into the the process and that was the the reason why it was um it's been set up in the manner in which it has thank you so the next speaker is councillor to me Hawkins thank you councillor to me Hawkins uh thank you chair um right just for clarification really we've we've we accept that it's a group it's not a committee that's correct that's correct yes it's not a committee okay and obviously uh it's been set up uh through the administration uh cabinet together with exec looking at what was required and the time frame within which we wanted this to come back it was supposed to be in a quick a quick look at the recommendations and what can be done and put that in place quickly so we recognize the urgency of that um and I'm looking at the motion and it just seems to me and from what you've said this group has to report to a point rather than to different committees I don't see that it can decide which committees it takes recommendations to the administration requested the um the the review and it really you know I don't see that the planning committee can implement uh you know recommendations from the group and from what you've said it seems just suggesting it can go to scrutiny it can go to committee it can go to cabinet but we need a cohesive way in which the feedback from the group is dealt with and to me that seems to be to go back to the administration and it's the administration who will then be able to actually put in place what needs to be implemented am I correcting that assumption or not so perhaps the the the easiest way to try and to experience to take one of the recommendations within the PAS report so one of the recommendations which possibly might be one of the most contentious recommendations but we'll we'll we'll go to it nonetheless one of the recommendations is to keep on the review the scheme of delegation so the planning committee focuses on deciding the most important planning applications so when the the committee group sorry apologize when the group meets um and they consider that recommendation it would be very very clear that because planning committee is responsible for the the scheme of delegation that that group for instance wouldn't report back to cabinet on that matter because part of cabinet have no powers to to set the planning scheme of delegation therefore for recommendation two for instance that would 100 come back via planning committee and so I think that when and these discussions these are the types of discussions that I expect when the group is set up at their first meeting to go through each of the recommendations and take recommendation two for instance and say okay we know definitely that that has to be that that should be fed back to to planning committee thank you um if I may chair but actually the scheme of delegation itself is not being looked at by this group I mean that is for the administration or the constitutional group to look at so that I just feel that we're we are trying to make this committee what it shouldn't be and I what I don't want to see is that we've got recommendations going to different parts of the administration that we don't know about or can't actually monitor and that wouldn't be an effective way of working scheme of delegation is not for this for the planning committee is it and it's not for this group it is a recommendation but they will they wouldn't be the ones looking at it and that's just an example and if I can I've lost it now and also asking for the terms of reference we fully expected that the group itself will determine its terms of reference at its first meeting I take the point about the chair chairmanship of the group and that is fine you know we always look into improve so you know not having an officer if seen as the best thing to do then that's fine however its terms of reference shouldn't have to be approved by the planning committee this is a group that's looking to help improve the planning committee and you can't be bringing back the terms of reference back into the committee it's time to improve um and so I'm I'm I'm I'm still very concerned about this motion and I think it is it's not in the right direction and the group will be taken any decision anyway so point three is not relevant and minutes will be taken as usual and you know this should not be a special request or emotion I don't think so I'm sorry but I still I still don't see that we need three or four um or even two is required so why don't we carry on with the group as has been set up um let them have their first meeting let them have their terms of reference set that all up and start working otherwise we'll be holding them up what is done in three months thank you Councillor Timmy Hock is I'm going to ask also Councillor Henry bachelor who was asked for a clarification question Rory before you come back on that one yes thank you I mean it's in a similar vein to the other questions I mean I just want a bit of clarity on this motion that Councillor Williams has put in front of us I mean is this other points in there for this planning committee to decide or can some of the finer detail be trashed out at the first meeting that's just what I want some clarity on should we be deciding this now or should we leave it up to the group to govern itself essentially oh that's just a legal question for you well I think that is ultimately a point for members here today do you want to accept that motion in which case it's set by planning committee in and if you don't want it then obviously it will fall to the it'll fall to the group to set up the terms of reference so it's it's entirely matter for members how they wish to do it okay thank you and Councillor Richard Williams I think you're next thank you chair thank you for letting me have a second go at this as well I must say I'm I'm all confused this is this is this I know we didn't want to get stuck in in process but Councillor Hawking's has just suggested that this group is not going to look at the scheme of delegation even though it's a recommendation but he's also saying the group will set its own terms of reference I mean both of those can't really be true because if it can set its own terms of reference on the basis of this report presumably it could decide to look at recommendation two which is in this report and nowhere does it say a list of the recommendations that this group can or cannot take forward as it's just been suggested that somehow there is a list of recommendations in here that are for this group and recommendations which aren't I find no list of that I'm afraid this is becoming less and less clear as we go on as to what this group is actually going to do I did have another point of clarification which is why this couldn't be a task and finish group we're creating this group which has no constitutional basis at all therefore we have no idea really what the rules are that apply to it so why couldn't it be a just a task and finish group as councillor Bradnam is quite right when it was introduced in scrutiny it was said it would be a task and finish group because of course task and finish groups can co-opt members to the group who are not elected members so we could have a group of officers and members on a task and finish basis in fact under the task and finish rules in the constitution which had non-councillors on it they just have to be co-opted by the group and that I think would be you know at least a clear basis we'd all know where we were rather than this situation where we don't know where we are but given if this is the you know this is the proposed I think having some constitutional rules as in this motion would be better but as I say I'm now confused as to what this group can and cannot do because it's been suggested there are things they can't do but that's not in the motion. So now I think because Richard Chair what I'd just like to do is what I heard was it's actually about where it reports to on the recommendations and I think that was councillor Tuma Hawking's point is whether or not the issue of scheme of delegation where that goes to in terms of a recommendation rather than whether or not the planning development group you know reviews the recommendations. If that is indeed the case then this group can look at scheme of delegation it's vital that an officer doesn't chair it because that's a really potentially contentious issue and not one that members we should be abrogating our responsibilities for to officers it's not fair to officers to do that. Okay and I think what we'll do now members is take this to a vote we're going to ask Councillor Hillard with him as you're able to come back and speak to the the group now in terms of your motion if you wanted to say anything additional at the end of that that debate. Thank you Chairman um so the first thing the first thing that I would like to summing up is say that the conversation that's gone on the debate that's been had is actually the main reason I brought this motion the truth is we don't know so we've been told that it's not going to be a decision-making body however it will be deciding what what it can talk about and where that that gets reported to that in itself is a decision so the two cannot compete other things that have been mentioned and words of probably envisaged you know and and so on and so forth we've got a cabinet member who you know quite quite rightly is saying the cabinet set this up so it should report to cabinet however nothing that we know it so far means that would actually have any basis or any reality or would ever even happen and actually to be completely clear the scheme of delegation of the planning committee is not a political function it's just it's a function of the planning authority it's a statutory function and only planning committee no cabinet interference only planning committee can actually adopt that scheme of delegates so we've got conflicts there in itself as well if there was a decision made about the number of people on this committee and the time it was taken how it everything else and nobody's had involvement with that we've heard that other than cabinet and offices we're relying on a task and finished model in a task and finished basis but already cherry pissing what we will or won't use in that for example the chairmanship where we've got clear evidence and I'm being told that some of these things are not relevant and we don't happen anyway in that case my argument would be what's the problem with adopting the motion so we've had complete conflicting information given here it is an entirely summed up why I brought this in the first place because otherwise what we are doing is we are giving authority in supporting this today and the establishment of a group to be self governing from this committee is a statutory function of this council which is not a political function a statutory function and we are then going and saying that we are going to have this and it's going to cabinet it should all go to cabinet all go in one place knows you know some of it might do this that we never support the motion that the terms of reference this doesn't say this motion does not say that this committee says the terms of reference all it does is ensure that the terms of reference comes back to us and we see it before any further action is done because right now we don't know what we're voting for they should be allowed to set their own terms of reference I understand that and that's why it's for them to do that so there's a statutory body in here with the people and this is planning this is a research this is we should be able to see that before it is enacted and then have the opportunity to raise concern as it is because right now truth is from this debate nobody knows and that is not a satisfactory and the governance is so crucial to gain confidence I'm excited if people aren't here thank you very much Casler Heather Williams and just as a point of clarification I'm looking at page 388 so that we are all clear recommendation two when we've referenced scheme of delegation the recommendation what it says is the isn't a recommendation scheme of delegation what it is is saying that it's kept under review that's the recommendation and that a formal review is undertaken in no later than a year I just wanted to clarify that point so what we have in front of us is this motion we have scrutiny having support of the establishment of this planning development group it's saying that in its first meeting it should set up its own terms of reference it has proposed that the chair of that is head of transformation that is something that could be decided by the group deciding on its remit the recommendation for the way it was set up was put forward by cabinet of the administration to scrutiny and it was established as you know was supported its establishment under that what we have is a motion which from council Heather Williams has brought forward we have that had that on the screen we've had just had that and debated we've had legal guidance and advice in response to some of the queries from Rory McKenna in terms of some of those challenges that were considered constitutional challenges to whether or not it could be set up in the way it was and as I understand that there aren't constitutional risks in the way it has been established and that much can be decided within the first meeting I understand that Councillor Williams was putting forward is a way of agreeing how that's put forward with the three points that were in that motions sorry to interrupt but can I just propose we go to a vote on the motion I'm just going to say that now so therefore with that summary which I think is one of the recommendations Councillor Bradenham is that we guide decision making by coming up with a summary of what's sort of being said which is what I'm trying to do just there and therefore we come to a vote on that motion which has been proposed by councillor Heather Williams and is seconded by councillor Nick Wright so I'm going to do that as I hear there are differences of opinion so I am going to do a roll call councillor Kaye Dawn can you take your camera off thank you very much and we'll go to a roll call members and this is as I said on be of recommendation which is around sort of the process and governance of this group councillor Henry butchers this is whether you're sorry for against or abstaining on the motion as presented by councillor Heather Williams sorry chairman can I just have clarification maybe in my old brains getting muddled at this time of the day we are voting on the new motion aren't we yes yes thank you very much chairman just what you're saying we're voting on the motion presented by councillor Heather Williams and seconded by councillor Nick Wright so you could say for against or abstain councillor Henry bachelor I'm against you councillor Bradenham against councillor Martin Kahn against councillor Peter Thane against councillor Dr Toomey Hawkins against councillor Deborah Roberts for councillor Heather Williams for councillor Dr Richard Williams for councillor Eileen Wilson against councillor Nick Wright for councillor Pippa Hylings myself against that's seven against and for supportive and therefore the motion is not carried and chairman I must leave at this point thank you for your support councillor Bradenham as well and councillor Henry bachelor will be supporting now in terms of the rest of the debate um the rest of that recommendation to committee was around the substantive nature one was to note that um note the report um note this was had the arrangements of this and agree that an update report on progress of implementation of report recommendations and of those recommendations coming back to planning committee in April and obviously we've just heard note in April but also some of the recommendations um could be brought for discussion as well at at planning committee do I have anybody else who would like to speak to the substantive issues within the report as Sharon Brown said she and Jeff um are very much listening to any of those comments and recommendations that are there it's not the only opportunity and a