Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence from Members.

Apologies were received from Cllr J Butt, Cllr M Howell and Cllr T O’Neil

To receive information on any changes in the membership of the Committee.

Note – When a member of a Committee is unable to attend a meeting of a Committee or Sub-Committee, the relevant Political Group Leader (or their nominated representative) may, by notice to the Monitoring Officer (or their nominated representative) prior to the meeting, appoint a substitute member from within the same Political Group. The contact details on the front of this agenda should be used for notifications. 

Cllr A Hadley for Cllr M Howell

Councillors are requested to declare any interests on items included in this agenda. Please refer to the workflow on the preceding page for guidance.

Declarations received will be reported at the meeting.

Cllr L Dedman, declared an interest for the purpose of transparency that she was a member of one of the town councils involved in the report at agenda item 6, Planning Committee Structure.

During consideration of the Board’s Forward Plan Cllr S Gabriel declared an interest for the purpose of transparency that he was the manager of two leisure centres as this was referred to in the Forward Plan.

To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution, which is available to view at the following link:

https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1

The deadline for the submission of a public question is 4 clear working days before the meeting.

The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday the working day before the meeting.

The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting.

There were no public questions, statements or petitions received.

To consider the new Cabinet report on Planning Improvement. This report is scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 24 November 2021. This Cabinet report also provides the update on the Planning function which the Board requested when the issue was last considered by the Board.

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise and comment on the report and if required make recommendations or observations as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Philip Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth and Regeneration and Councillor Bobbie Dove, Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Regulatory Services.

The Cabinet report for this item is included with the agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

The Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth and Regeneration presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each member of the Board and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Portfolio Holder and officers addressed a number of points raised by the Board including:

·     It was observed that since this issue was last discussed by the Board the work appeared to have been identifying issues rather than finding resolutions. The Board was advised that the service had become more decisive in decision making and staff dealt more promptly with customer enquiries. The protocol for handling applications had been reviewed and customers would feel the effects of the measures being put in place.

·     A Board member asked whether there was a list and timeframe of actions and a project improvement plan. It was noted that part of this was set out within the report but there was a more detailed version which had been approved by the Planning Improvement Board (PIB).

·     A number of timescales had been extended by agreement. It was suggested that therefore the table did not accurately reflect the timescales for applications. A Councillor asked whether the improvement in completions was from timescale extensions agreed. The statistics were reported in the same way as other planning authorities and extensions were agreed by the applicant in order to work towards a solution. However, it was hoped to get to a point where extensions were used infrequently. The Board noted that it was difficult for O&S to address this as it had not seen the data.

·     There were concerns raised in the use of extensions and how these were handled. A Member requested that for future reports the Board receive information on the number of reports dealt with within the original timescale and the number of applicants who had asked for a redetermination.

·     Concern was raised about the level of support being given to the development of neighbourhood plans which were supposed to have a dedicated support officer.

·     There was no mention within the report of improved communications with residents. For example, there appeared to be no ambition for providing automatic alerts to members of the public on a postcode basis.

·     The Board asked about the Planning Authority’s relationship with the Urban Regeneration Company (URC). The Portfolio Holder advised that Future Places (the URC) was a wing of the Council and they would want to see that the planning service could react to the level of Council aspirations in this area, whether through the URC or through other external bodies.

·     In relation to the delegation recommendation in the report it was noted that an opportunity was needed to review the current situation to find a way to meet the needs of the community. Further work was required to come to a resolution, the Portfolio Holder decision was one way of doing this. It was confirmed that this was not intended to downgrade or make financial savings but to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

The Overview and Scrutiny Board, at its last meeting, considered a request from a member of the Public regarding BCP Council’s Planning Committee Structure. The Board agreed to consider this matter further and is placed on this agenda for consideration at this meeting.

The request was accompanied by a consultant’s report commissioned by local Parish Councils which is attached to this agenda for further consideration.

The relevant Cabinet Members Councillor Philip Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth and Regeneration and Councillor Bobbie Dove, Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Regulatory Services have been invited to attend the meeting for consideration of this item.

Following a request by a member of the public for an item of scrutiny to be placed on the Board’s agenda in relation to the Planning Committee Structure the Board agreed to place this on the Boards Forward Plan and the Chairman had agreed to add this to the agenda for this meeting.

The Chairman of the Board invited, the parish Councils’ representative Chairman of Highcliffe & Walkford Parish Council, who was acting at the request of, Christchurch Town Council, Hurn Parish Council, Burton Parish Council and Throop & Holdenhurst Parish Council, to address the Board and outline the issues which they wanted the Board to consider.

The representative explained that they felt that BCP Council should operate the Planning function as three separate area-based committees rather than one single committee. It was outlined that there was a lack of confidence in the system by many which was why the local parish councils had become involved in the situation. There was no confidence that the Councillors on the Planning Committee would appreciate and understand the nuances of planning in the different areas of the conurbation. They believed that public confidence would increase if the Council operated with three, area-based committees as opposed to the single committee model.

The Chairman invited the Head of Planning to respond to the points raised. The Board was advised that they understood the concerns and issues raised by the parish councils within the report but from their perspective the current planning committee was operating very effectively and that there hadn’t been any issues of the wrong decisions being made. Councillors applied the appropriate policies within the different areas. It was no considered that this was the most appropriate time to raise this as there were many other issues in the service at present. This was also previously considered less than 12 months ago but was potentially something to monitor

There was a need to approach this in an evidenced based way. The statement in the report that there was a democratic deficit in the current planning system was not evidenced. However, the Planning Committee shouldn’t stand still but should consider opportunities. The current operations were efficient and cost effective. Multiple committees were in the minority across the country and were generally in Council’s which covered a large geographical area. A key risk in moving to a multiple committee model would be a need to ensure consistency.  Servicing a committee was time and resource intensive. There was nothing within the report which indicated that a shared or multiple committee system would be more efficient or engaging than the current arrangement.

The Chairman also invited a Ward Councillor for the Commons Ward to address the Committee who advised that public confidence was the absolute key to effective town planning. Making decisions which the public had faith in required local knowledge. Many local residents did not have this confidence in this current system. Councillors needed to use local knowledge to understand that what may be acceptable in one area of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

To consider and amend the Board’s Forward Plan as appropriate and to consider the published Cabinet Forward Plan.

Following a request by a member of the public for an item of scrutiny to be placed on the Board’s agenda in relation to the Planning Committee Structure the Board agreed to place this on the Boards Forward Plan and the Chairman had agreed to add this to the agenda for this meeting.

The Chairman of the Board invited, the parish Councils’ representative Chairman of Highcliffe & Walkford Parish Council, who was acting at the request of, Christchurch Town Council, Hurn Parish Council, Burton Parish Council and Throop & Holdenhurst Parish Council, to address the Board and outline the issues which they wanted the Board to consider.

The representative explained that they felt that BCP Council should operate the Planning function as three separate area based committees rather than one single committee. It was outlined that there was a lack of confidence in the system by many which was why the local parish councils had become involved in the situation. There was no confidence that the Councillors on the Planning Committee would appreciate and understand the nuances of planning in the different areas of the conurbation. They believed that public confidence would increase if the Council operated with three area based committees as opposed to the single committee model.

The Chairman invited the Head of Planning to respond to the points raised. The Head of Planning advised the Board that they understood the concerns and issues raised by the parish councils within the report but from their perspective the current planning committee was operating very effectively and that there had not been any issues of the wrong decisions being made. Councillors applied the appropriate policies within the different areas. It was not considered that this an appropriate time to raise this as there were many other issues in the service to address. The issue was also previously considered less than 12 months ago but was potentially something to monitor.

The statement in the report that there was a democratic deficit in the current planning system was not evidenced. The current operations were efficient and cost effective. Multiple committees were in the minority across the country and were generally in Councils which covered a large geographical area. A key risk in moving to a multiple committee model would be a need to ensure consistency.  Servicing a committee was time and resource intensive. There was nothing within the report which indicated that a shared or multiple committee system would be more efficient or engaging than the current arrangement.

The Chairman also invited a Ward Councillor for the Commons Ward to address the Committee. They advised that public confidence was the absolute key to effective town planning. Making decisions which the public had faith in required local knowledge. Many local residents did not have confidence in the current system. Councillors needed to use local knowledge to understand that what may be acceptable in one area of the conurbation would not be in another area. It was also suggested that the Committee of 15 members was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

To note the following proposed meeting dates for the 2021/22 municipal year:

·       6 December 2021

·       5 January 2022

·       31 January 2022

·       28 February 2022

·       4 April 2022

And 2022/23 municipal year:

·       16 May 2022

·       13 June 2022

·       18 July 2022

·       22 August 2022

·       19 September 2022

·       17 October 2022

·       14 November 2022

·       5 December 2022

·       9 January 2023

·       6 February 2023

·       6 March 2023

·       3 April 2023

All meetings will be held via video conferencing until further notice.

The dates for the current and next municipal year were noted.