Agenda item

5.1       The Committee received a report which provided an overview of the   recommended changes to the current procedures for accepting late      representations in advance of Planning Applications Sub-Committee meetings. The recommended procedure included the introduction of a          deadline for submission of late representations in advance of the             commencement of the committee meeting to allow Members and officers           appropriate time to fully consider the planning merits of the issues being    brought before the committee.

5.2       The operation and function of the Planning Applications Sub-Committees            were governed by the Terms of Reference set out in the Constitution, the   Statement of Community Involvement in Planning (2014) and the Committee      Procedure Rules, which were last updated to allow for hybrid committee             meetings in May 2021. Any amendments to the procedures for accepting late             representations do not require any changes to the Constitution or the     Statement of Community Involvement in Planning.

5.3       Members were reminded that representations received prior to the publication             of the committee report were summarised and addressed in full in the report      and full copies of the representations were provided in the background     papers. Representations received after the publication of the committee             report and prior to 2.00pm on the Thursday prior to committee were circulated             to Members by the close of business on that day. For representations received after 2.00pm on the Thursday prior to committee there was currently no defined ‘cut off’ after which representations would not be accepted.             Representations were accepted up until the start of the committee meeting     and circulated at the meeting.

5.4       Members were advised that officers had reviewed the approaches taken by    other comparable local planning authorities (LPAs) and assessed the practicality of introducing a deadline on a variety of days prior to the             committee meeting. Of the ten other LPAs analysed, 5 had introduced a             deadline for late representations prior to planning committee meetings and 5           accepted representations up until the start of the committee meeting. Of those   with a deadline, 2 were set earlier on the day of the committee meeting.

5.5       Considering the approaches taken by comparable LPAs, and having regard to        the processes that are required to be undertaken by Legal Services and the           Committee and Councillor Liaison Team in advance of a Planning             Applications Sub-Committee meeting, officers have considered three options          for introducing a deadline for late representations:

·       Option 1 – Deadline at 12.00 on the day of the committee meeting

·       Option 2 – Deadline at 12.00 on the working day prior to the committee meeting

·       Option 3 – Deadline at 12.00 two working days prior to the committee meeting (to align with current public speaking deadline).

5.6       The Committee discussed the various options regarding deadlines for submitting late representations to Planning Applications Sub-Committees and was advised by Officers that the preferred Option was 2. Officers commented that Option 2 allowed the Major and Minor Planning Sub-Committees to still consider the late representation and enabled parties who had either missed the deadline for registering to make a deputation at the Sub-Committees, or had not been granted a speaking slot, the opportunity to put forward a written submission. A mechanism was recommended to allow acceptance of representations after the deadline in exceptional circumstances to ensure that it does not prejudice the ability of the committee to consider representations that raise genuinely new material planning considerations.?This would be achieved by giving the Chair discretion to accept late representations in exceptional circumstances. ?Where a representation was received after the deadline, the Presiding Officer and the Solicitor to the Council would advise the Chair whether the late representation raises new material planning considerations. ?The Presiding Officer would advise the commentor of the chair’s decision. Officers advised that it was unusual for new material considerations to be presented immediately prior to a committee meeting. The Committee noted that the Chair’s refusal to accept a late representation may be challenged. Members noted that the Chairs had discretion on whether interested parties could make verbal representations at the Sub-Committee if they apply after the online register to speak at the meeting has closed.

5.7       Members had an in-depth discussion and noted the following: -

5.7.1    The Committee was informed that there had been historic discussions on how           late representations should be processed and whether a set deadline should           be implemented.

5.7.2    That there had been an increase in the number of late representations being             submitted and that written information contained in these documents were increasingly becoming bulkier. Members noted that their Sub-Committees     were adjourned for these documents to be read and acknowledged that             lengthy late written representations may be difficult to fully comprehend           during             adjournments.

5.7.3    Members noted that the Chair’s introductory note advised that Members received and read all documents a week prior to their meeting and felt that reading representations during the meeting gave rise to the perception that this would not the case. The Legal Officer advised that all representations need to be considered and fully assessed as part of the decision-            making process and failure to do this would leave the council open to legal challenge. The Committee noted that the Chair’s introductory note would need to be updated to include a statement that the Chair had the discretion to accept any late representations that were received after the deadline for summiting written information. The Chair should also advise of the number of late representations received after the deadline and give reasons on why they are accepted or refused. 

5.7.4    Members agreed that interested parties should not be deterred from submitting written representations to their Sub-Committees and commented that some in this cohort may not be fully aware or be engaged in the planning process. Officers reminded the meeting that the Chair would have discretion on whether late representations after the deadline should be accepted and highlighted that written information received was typically duplication of information which had previously been submitted by interested parties.

5.7.5    Members commented that the processes including the setting of deadlines for submitting late representations should continue to be primarily resident focused and noted at currently they were able to request for an adjournment to read late representations that were submitted. Members agreed that all representations were valid and should be fully evaluated regardless of when they ae submitted during the application. The Committee noted that the proposed options put forward would largely be beneficial to Members and officers time would not be reduced if any was adopted.

5.7.6    Members agreed that the Chair’s script should be updated and include a segment which informed that the Chair had the discretion to accept any late representations that were received after the deadline for summitting written representations. The Chair should also advise of the number of late representations received and give reasons as to why they had been accepted or refused. The Sub-Committee would be adjourned to allow Members sufficient time to read any late written representations.

5.7.7    Members agreed that officers should conduct an analysis of late     representations that were submitted to their Sub-Committees and noted that 5     of the 10 Local Planning Authorities which were benchmarked accepted             written submissions on the same day as their planning committees. 

5.7.8    Members agreed that adequate reading time to digest written representations should be factored in and noted that colleagues had employment commitments and noted that this can cause pressure on time for reading late documents. Members also commented that it was more difficult to consider lengthy representations that are tabled at the Sub-Committee. There was a view that implementing a deadline for late representations would ensure that the Sub-Committees decision-making would be more robust, and the duty to ensure that all representations were given due attention would be easier to meet.

5.7.9    The Committee also acknowledged that colleagues may also be slow readers, and that a deadline submission for late written representation on the same day as the online register to make deputations at their Sub-Committees     or the day before the meeting would help to alleviate the above concerns.

5.7.10  Members commented that interested parties should be permitted to submit             written representations until 10:00hrs on the day of the Sub-Committee           during Bank Holiday periods. Members were informed that during Bank     Holiday periods the online register to make deputations at Planning        Sub-            Committees were brought a day forward.

5.7.11  Members noted that some interested parties such as developers and planning             agents were better resourced and would be more familiar about the planning   process in relation to late representations in comparison to residents. The             Committee noted that a set deadline for all stakeholders would ensure there             was equity amongst all groups in this matter and timeframes should be fully             published and it be communicated that late representations may not be         considered.

5.7.12  Members commented that stakeholders are not able to address issues that are raised in late representations submitted by other parties that are tabled at the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee also noted that late representations tabled at the meeting may be given undue weight and that this would be avoided if all representations were considered at the same time prior to the meeting.

5.7.13  That both the statutory (21 day) and any new deadlines for submitting written representations should be made public. Members noted that the latter should be viewed as a concession in instances when interested parties fail to submit written submission before the statutory deadline. The Committee noted that not all interested parties would be aware of the pre-committee deadline and that some LPAs. It was noted that the Service was committed to setting out their consultation period under the Statement of Community Involvement in Planning.

5.7.14  Members commented that late representations could also serve as a refresher to colleagues on what are the main concerns or topics for a particular application. Members also noted that interested parties would be aware that there may be difficulties encountered by the Sub-Committee in fully comprehending lengthy written late submissions that are tabled at the meeting.

5.7.15  Members noted that their adopted Policies set out what should be considered as ‘material considerations’. The Sub-Committee were informed that a definition and examples of ‘material consideration’ were available on the Service website and that the website also contains advice on how to comment on planning applications and get involved. The Community Planning Advisor and early community engagement guidance would ensure that the wider community involvement in planning, particularly in the earlier stages of the planning process. Members commented that interested residents would likely to be fully engaged in the initial stages of planning schemes.

5.7.16  The Committee noted that the current procedure for receiving late    representations had successfully operated for a long period and that             Members would have ensured that all representations received were fully   understood before making a decision. These decisions therefore should not    be viewed as being invalid.

5.7.17  Members agreed that any new procedure that may be adopted should be          reviewed, and the outcomes reported to a future Committee. The review      should include how the Chairs discretion was used and what representations             were received and include those that were refused.

5.7.18  Members requested that officers provide an analysis of what is contained in late representations, and this should include trends such as their frequency, content, profile of those submitting representations and whether they were repetitious of previous information previously submitted. The Committee also requested that information be provided on how other LPAs support their members in reading late representations, in particular individuals that have reading needs or English as a second language.

RESOLVED:

1.     Members noted the contents of the report.

2.     That officers provide an analysis of what are contained in late submissions that are submitted to Planning Applications Sub-Committees and this should include trends such as their frequency, contents, and profile of those submitting representations and whether information submitted are repetitious be reported at their next meeting.

3.     That officers provide information on how other Local Planning Authorities support their members in reading late representations and individuals who have reading needs such as dyslexia or English as a second language.

4.     That Chairs of all Planning Sub-Committee make it explicitly known that sufficient time would be provided for Members to read all late representations.

5.     That the procedure for receiving late representations that may be adopted is reviewed and the outcomes reported to a future Committee. The review should include how the Chairs discretion was used and what representations were received and include those that were refused.