Agenda item

(a)     To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be   considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

(b)     To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.

1. Cllr N Pearce advised that an article had appeared in one of the Local papers, the Crab Tales, regarding application RV/22/0308 which had been discussed at the last Development Committee meeting. The article detailed that a decision had been reached that there would be no low cost homes on the site, despite Members agreeing for deferment with the item expected to be brought before Committee once more. Cllr N Pearce asked for clarity if a decision had been reached, and to confirm that the item would be returned to Committee.

2. The DM advised that since the deferment of the application at the last meeting, no decision had been reached, and the item would be presented again to the Development Committee provided that the Applicant did not appeal against non-determination based on the expiry of the proposal. The extension of the time for the proposal had been since agreed to the end of April. He advised that two further meetings had taken place between Officers and the Applicant following the last Committee Meeting, to discuss particular issues on delivering affordable houses on the site, and to negotiate a successful way forward. These negotiations were ongoing.

3. Cllr A Brown noted that there was a free press in the UK, though perhaps it may be better that reporters gain a greater insight into the planning process before reporting. He asked if the head of Communications at NNDC could follow up on this matter with the editor of the Crab Tales.

4. The ADP advised, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, he would be pleased to refer the matter to the Communications team, and ask that the editor be contacted. As a matter of public record, he confirmed that the public access system is available which confirms that no decision had been reached on this application. The ADP advised that it remained the case that the application would be returned to Committee as agreed.

5. Cllr N Pearce thanked Officers for the clarification that no decision had been reached. He noted that the provision of low-cost housing was of significant concern locally, and that the way the case had been reported in the Crab Tales had resulted in a number of distressed calls made by residents to himself. Further, he considered that the conduct of the Applicant, contacting Officers during the Committee meeting, but not being in attendance themselves, to be poor.

Cllr N Lloyd left the meeting at 11.23am.

6. Cllr A Brown affirmed that as Portfolio Holder for Planning he had asked that the manner in which the applicant had engaged with the Committee at the last Committee Meeting be reviewed. He argued that representations should be made in person to the Committee, as an act of deference to the Committee in their decision making. He was not satisfied with the conduct of the Applicant at the last meeting. Cllr A Brown thanked Cllr P Heinrich for his competent Chairing of the meeting which had been challenging.

7. The Chairman shared her thanks for Cllr P Heinrich for deputising in her absence. She agreed that it was a sign of respect to the Committee and Officer’s that large developers attend Development Committee, and that she as Chairman would expect a representative to attend in person to support their application. To not do so, she considered, was disrespectful.

8. Cllr R Kershaw reflected that Members were expected to attend Committee in person, and stated it was underhanded of the Applicant to conduct themselves in the manner they had done at the last meeting.

9. The ADP advised the current position, that representations were made through the discretion of the Chairman, and that the Committee, both in terms of Officers and Members, try to be flexible in receiving those representations. Following the Portfolio Holder meeting he had engaged with the Committee support team, and affirmed that it was clear that the Committee could refuse to accept written representations which are made after the commencement of the Development Committee meeting. A review of public speaking representations and attendance at committee would be undertaken in the new administration. The ADP further advised this matter had been followed up with the Applicant, and it was his expectation that when this item was re-presented at Committee a representative for the developer would be in attendance. He advised that Officers would continue to encourage the representations of applicants in articulating their case, but advised that attendance could not be enforced.