Only Cambridge’s independent councillor, John Hipkin, has submitted a motion to Cambridge City Council’s full council on Thursday the 27th of February.
None of the Liberal Democrat or Labour councillors, nor the Conservative, have any matter which they have thought worthy of submitting a motion to the full council on. This lack of activity is particularity astonishing as the full council hasn’t met for a routine meeting at which motions from councillors are considered since October 2013.
Cllr Hipkin’s Motion – Planning Reforms
Motion text:
Mindful of the heavy costs awarded against the City Council at recent planning appeals, this Council urges the Review Panel charged with examining how the planning committee might avoid such costs in the future to consider the following measures and to recommend accordingly:
- that planning committee meetings should be conducted with the same decorum and impartiality as a court of law.
- that members of the planning committee should be required to undertake regular training [including basic training before any member sits on a planning or area committee for the first time] and to attend briefings to ensure that their knowledge of current planning law and practice is up to date and that they are fully aware of how previous decisions of the committee relate to prospective applications.
- that where members of the planning committee are minded to overturn officer recommendations on major applications, that the determination of such applications should be postponed so that further advice on the potential risks and implications of that decision can be given to members by officers and others appointed to advise the planning committee.
- that councillors, whose votes are contrary to officer advice and likely to trigger appeals, should be required to nominate one or more of their number to defend their decisions before an Inspector at appeal.
No Guarantee of Debate
Cllr Hipkin’s motion has not been seconded. If the motion is not seconded it may not get considered at all.
Part 4A rule 17.1 on p133 of the council’s constitution states:
A motion or amendment shall not be discussed unless it has been proposed and seconded
There are exceptions only for motions which are reports or proposals from the executive or council committees.
It isn’t clear if a speech moving and introducing a motion ought be considered discussing it; but I think a councillor ought be able to speak in favour of their motion if only to seek to persuade another councillor to second it.
My View on The Substance
The council is reportedly likely to have to pay costs of £340,000 after losing an appeal in relation to the demolition of Wilton Terrace, a building within the station area CB1.
I observed councillors approve the CB1 outline plans in 2008. It’s notable that Labour’s Cllr Blencowe, was the only one to vote against on the grounds of an “unacceptable effect on listed buildings” at the time.
My view is there was a lack of clarity at the point of consideration of the outline plan as to what decisions were being taken at that point; and what was to be left to detailed planning applications for individual sites within the area. The meeting heard “that’s not an appropriate point for the outline stage” more often than you hear “that’s an operational matter” at a public meeting on policing.
When decisions go though many different committees at different times each it ought be made clear to the public, and councillors, exactly what purpose, and impact, of each stage of the process is.
There is also a problem with councillors giving too much weight to those individuals and campaign groups who lobby them outside the proper process. Those who submit comments in public via the proper process have their contributions made public; many people can read them and others can respond to points made; this is in sharp contrast with contributions from those who choose to lobby councillors directly, in private. We need councillors who can place appropriate weight to the comments coming via each route, and assess the substance of what is being said, rather than how loudly and passionately a viewpoint is being presented.
We need to elect councillors who view consultations as a way of gathering opinions and evidence and who will stop treating consultations as mini-referenda.
Cllr Sarah Brown for example has described the 60 emails she got on Wilton Terrace as “effective lobbying”; while admitting she doesn’t read the planning files; which contain the objections submitted via official process (to which Cllr Brown regularly directs people via her website).
Cllr Brown was removed from the planning committee shortly after that escapade, though cause and effect isn’t known, and the decision, while approved by the full council, was probably effectively taken behind the closed doors of a secret Liberal Democrat group meeting.
In another case of costs being awarded against the council the applicant is reported as having: “lashed out at the “nimbyism” of the council and neighbours who objected to the plans, claiming councillors were swayed by a “vocal and vociferous minority”.
One of the most shocking planning decisions I’ve witnessed was when councillors ditched all planning principles and gave permission for a development on the grounds that the proceeds were to go to a good cause; see my article:
I oppose some of the specific elements of Cllr Hipkin’s proposal:
- I don’t think a court is a good model for a planning meeting. The environment of a court, with the ever-present threat of being sent to the cells for contempt, is not one I’d like to see replicated within the council. Council meetings are already intimidating enough.
- I think the only qualification someone needs to participate in a planning decision is to be elected as a councilor. I don’t want to see elected councillors deemed unqualified to take planning decisions until they’ve been “trained”. I am concerned that some councillors would not be strong enough to stand up to training which might seek to, for example, deter them from standing up against officers in the interests of those they represent.
- I would like to see councillors taking an active role in defending appeals regardless of if they arise due to a decision which was for, or against, an officer recommendation.
- I don’t see why a note on the potential “risks and implications” of a decision could not be included as standard in officer reports to planning committees. Suspending proceedings to await an additional report appears to me to introduce an unnecessary delay.
I don’t think the solutions can be found within the current council chamber. The hefty awards of costs against our council should be suggesting to Cambridge residents that we need to be electing better councillors.
I want to see strong, empowered, councillors. I think that’s key to our democracy. I don’t like unelected planning inspectors who are not locally accountable able to overturn decisions made by our councillors. I’d rather see other elected representatives, in the first instance, consider any appeal suggesting an application was mishandled.
I’ve also previously written about the dilemma which has led a number of my own representatives from refusing to participate in planning decisions; they’ve thought that the council’s rules have made it impossible to act as a democratic representative while considering a planning application; and one of their reasons for not participating in planning has been to avoid risking costs being awarded against the council should they participate in the manner they feel they are morally required to. I think the council’s constitution needs to be amended to give councillors the confidence to fully participate in planning decisions.
We have previously seen debates at full council where the executive has been trying to encourage councillors to take part in planning decisions after some scandalously low participation rates at area committees, where decisions were taken on the back of just three or four votes.
5 responses to “Proposed Cambridge City Council Planning Reforms From Cllr Hipkin”
To my mind, the problem is partly that developers can ask for compensation from councils. That doesn’t seem right at all and clearly puts councils in a difficult position. It also seems unreasonable since budgets are being cut. It can seem, I have heard it alleged, that they are effectively used to pay for the applicants expensive lawyers at the planning inspectorate stage thus leaving a council that doesn’t have such deep pockets to make their case as best they can in the face of these professionals.
On the subject of training. I want them to feel able to make good decisions based on evidence and after proper scrutiny of the applications and any comments they have received from the public or other interested parties. If training helps then I’d be all for it.
At Cambridge City Council’s Full Council on the 27th of February 2014 Cllr Peter Roberts described his planning training as brief and not useful; saying he learned more from other councillors.
I think the electorate need to elect people capable of fulfilling the role; and I think that means people who’ve observed, and carefully considered, some planning decisions, and their consequences, in detail.
What’s next after introducing compulsory training though? Requiring that councillors pass an exam to demonstrate they’ve understood their training? Would councillors who acted in a manner contrary to their training find themselves prevented from participation in planning decisions until they had been retrained and submitted to officers’ views?
My view is that training would be risky if were not strong enough to stand up to it, question what they were being told during the training, and give it appropriate weight.
I think councillors need to be answerable only to their constituents and not a council officer or external contractor responsible for training.
Councillors need to have access to officers for advice and assistance as they are seeking to understand their roles; I think ensuring that is available and functional is much more preferable than insisting on compulsory training.
Full council already selects members of the main planning committee so can select those councillors they think will be capable and responsible; and remove those who behave inappropriately; I think that’s a democratic and transparent safeguard.
If we as the residents of Cambridge elect people who are not capable of running the council legally then central government takes over; that happens in the case of planning following appeals to the inspectorate who’s answerable to ministers and it would happen in the case of a council failing to pass a budget. If we want local democracy then we have to elect good councillors.
Cllr Hipkin’s proposal was replaced by an amendment from the Liberal Democrats which deleted it’s entire contents and replaced it with a statement of what they are doing to address the problems.
The amended motion was passed unanimously with Cllr Hipkin saying no one would take any notice of either version.
I wouldn’t want them to be accountable to anyone except the people who voted for them. Perish the thought. I was just trying to think of ways of making sure we have councillors who are really up to speed with things.
(Incidentally, is there any reason why the chair of any council meeting can’t impose a time limit on discussions so meetings don’t go on past 11.30pm? Full council (and some area committees) always goes on and on even though they start at 6pm.)