Archived decisions

Contact: Roger Lawes, ext 6743 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 At its meeting on 29 November 2006 the Committee considered the outcomes from a Member training event held earlier in the autumn. Members were aware of the increased expectations within the local community to address the Committee and seek to influence the outcome. They recognised there was a fine judgment between seeming to discourage deputations to avoid overloading the Committee, and wanting to gather all the evidence to help ensure that the correct decision was made. On balance they felt it would be useful to pilot a procedure whereby `cross-examination' of deputees and applicants could take place. A small Working Group comprising the Chairman, Vice Chairman and representatives from the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups was established to devise a pilot scheme.

1.2 This report records the Working Group's discussions and recommends the way forward.

2. Recommendations

The Working Group recommends that:

(i) It would be worthwhile for the Regulatory Committee to pilot a scheme where relevant questions can be posed to deputees.

(ii) The pilot scheme should be based on suspending Standing Order 21 in relevant cases rather than amending the Constitution.

(iii) Any request for suspending Standing Order 21, to allow questions to be put, will be taken after hearing all deputations on an agenda item and will be moved and voted upon without debate.

(iv) Questions from Committee Members should be put to the Chairman who may seek the advice of the legal and other advisers as appropriate: the Chairman's decision on a question will be final. Questioning will be limited to matters of fact and clarification.

(v) A pilot scheme should be run for four meetings. The agenda for all four meetings will clearly identify that, as part of a pilot scheme, Standing Orders might be suspended to allow the Committee to pose questions to deputees.

(vi) Although they are not covered by Standing Order 21, Local Members who speak at Committee should also be alerted to the fact that they too might be asked questions.

(vii) The Working Group should review the outcome of the pilot scheme.

3. Background

3.1 Local Members and the local community are increasingly wanting to become more involved in the planning process. The greatest direct impact on the Regulatory Committee resulting from this desire is the increasing number of deputations. While, in itself, this involvement is to be welcomed, observers are suggesting that the inevitable personal nature of many deputations may mask the complexity of the facts and issues relating to planning and rights of way applications, which makes a balanced decision more difficult. Another consequence is the trend towards determining applications on grounds inspired by deputees, but which are not defensible on planning grounds or on the evidence, or deferring items for a report on matters that are not strictly relevant to the determination of the application. A possible solution is to change Regulatory Committee procedure to enable clarification of matters of fact.

4. Working Group Discussion

4.1 Members of the Working Group were aware from their own experience at the Regulatory Committee of circumstances where they would have liked to know the justification supporting statements made by deputees. They had been keen to ask a question to clarify a point, but were reluctant to do so because of Standing Orders. They were also alert to the fact that, in changing procedures to allow appropriate questions to be put, it was essential to avoid both the appearance of `opening negotiations' and putting deputees, particularly members of the public unused to public speaking, under undue pressure.

4.2 Members were also aware that, although on the face of it they might be minded to change procedures so they were able to validate facts put forward by deputees, it was important to differentiate between clarifying facts and exploring issues, the latter being the purpose of the Committee debate. Accordingly, rather than explore ways in which deputees could be "cross-examined" the Working Group agreed that the approach should be to explore the means by which Members could seek clarification of matters of fact raised by deputees.

4.3 The Working Group rejected the approach adopted in some authorities whereby informal meetings are held to enable deputees to make presentations to Committee and for the Committee to pose questions to deputees. This approach was considered to be fraught with all sort of procedural and practical difficulties, in particular a lack of transparency.

4.4 The Working Group noted that Standing Order 21 said that "no discussion shall take place with the presenters of a deputation" and explored the options of seeking either to amend that Standing Order as it applied to the Regulatory Committee to allow deputees to be asked questions; or a process of suspending Standing Orders in particular circumstances. The Working Group agreed that as any recommendation at this stage would only be to pilot a scheme, managing the suspension of Standing Orders would provide the simplest solution.

4.5 The Working Group then considered the practical issues of suspending Standing Orders. It agreed that the purpose of such action should be to allow Committee Members better to understand the basis for comments made by deputees. To ensure that any questions were focussed on clarifying matters of fact, it was agreed that all questions should be asked through the Chairman as the controller of the proceedings. To avoid any procedural complications the Working Group concluded that it should be custom and practice that any proposal to suspend Standing Order 21 to allow questions to be put would moved by the Chairman after all deputations on an item had been presented. The matter would be voted on without debate and the presumption would be that the Standing Order would be suspended. The Chairman would also manage the meeting's time for questions on each item having regard to the need for the Committee to have all the relevant information it requires.

4.6 The Working Group also considered that deputees ought to be alerted to the possibility that they might be asked questions of fact by the Committee as a result of comments they might make and that the Agenda papers should make it clear that, as appropriate, Standing Orders would be suspended to enable relevant questions to be put. Other County Council publications (including Hantsweb) which make particular reference to deputations and the special role of the Regulatory Committee would also need to be changed to refer to the proposed arrangements.

4.7 The Working Group considered that it might also be appropriate for the Committee to ask questions of fact of local Members addressing the Committee and that they too should be alerted to this possibility.

4.8 The Working Group decided that it would be sensible to run any pilot proposal for a number of meetings; four was the final number chosen. Following the conclusion of the pilot scheme, the Working Group would reconvene to evaluate its success in enabling matters of fact to be clarified and whether it should continue on a permanent basis, in which case it would consider whether continuing to suspend Standing Orders was the most expedient way of proceeding or whether a change to the Constitution should be considered.

1326/RL