TL:DR
In 2019, there was a proposal from the chairs of the Development Committees to require a deferral rather than outright refusal.
That proposal didn't reach the BCC constitution.
In 2020, there was a proposal to strongly push Councillors to defer rather than refuse (see page 16), but it doesn't appear to require that deferral.
The planning department has been acting as if the proposal that was abandoned is actually the rule.
I suspect people just misremembered which one was actually implemented.
Summary
Some people think that Development Control committees aren't allowed to give a refusal to a planning application in a meeting, instead those committees need to 'defer' refusals for the next meeting.
- At some point in 2019, the chairs of the Development Committees (Don Alexander and Tom Brook) proposed that there should be a 'cooling off' period when a development committee refuses an application.
- A draft of the proposed changes can be found here.
- This change was proposed to the Audit committee on the 29th July 2019, who said it was a matter for the development committees to decide, so the Audit Committee referred it back to the Development Committees but it's not clear it ever reached them.
- At the Audit Committee 16 March 2020 there was a similar proposal that strongly encourages a refusal to be deferred to the next meeting, but does not require it.
- At Full Council on the 21st May 2020, the Audit Committee proposal was recommended and approved.
The actual current rules can be found on page 16 of this part of the constitution Part 5 (D) Code of conduct for members and officers: planning matters
Timeline
29th July 2019 - Audit Committee
As part of the Updating the Constitution agenda item, there is a suggestion for a "Cooling off period for the determination of planning decisions"
The minutes of this meeting say that:
The Committee agreed that it was not the best forum to comment on the proposal.
and
That the proposal from the Chairs of the Development Control Committees to amend the Committee Procedure Rules to include a ‘cooling off period’ where the Committee was minded to decide a matter otherwise than in accordance with officer recommendations be referred to Development Control Committee members for consideration.
a.k.a. no decision was made about the proposed 'cooling off' period.
26th September, 2019 - Growth and Regeneration Scrutiny Commission
Clive Stevens made a public forum statement which I'm going to quote at length as it accurately describes the problem:
I was horrified to see on page 31 that a key measure of success of this administration is the percentage of major applications approved. (See DGR313a). Major applications are generally approved by Development Committees which are supposed to be independent decisions taken by Councillors based off independent Officer advice.
My horror comes from the possibility that this measure is putting Planning Officers in a conflict of interest situation. They are supposed to be assessing whether a development meets planning policy but in the back of their mind they know one of the department’s measures of success and possibly even their own personal objective is influencing them to favour approval over and above the principle of sustainable development.
And what if, for example, a Committee refuses an application and it is taken to appeal by the developer. If officers are measured on approval percentage then how much effort will they put into documents that support the Committee’s decision to refuse. That has to meet the test of potential bias and open the Council up to judicial review
There are huge amounts of money to be made by YTL, L&G and lots of other developers with so much to gain from “subtle” changes to policy. Indeed some in Bristol would be justified in wondering whether both land and now democracy seems to be being sold off to the highest bidder.
16th March 2020 - Audit Committee
There was a proposal that strongly encourages a refusal to be deferred to the next meeting, but does not require it.
21st May 2020 - Full Council
There are three documents for this item:
- Constitution Update: Members Code of Conduct for Development Control Committees
- Appendix 1 Part 5(d) Code of conduct for members and officers - planning matters
- Appendix 2 - Good practice protocol for planning
The first document is the overview, near the bottom of the second page, there is:
- Changes to appendix 1 of the Code concerning the situation where the decision of the Committee is to overturn officer recommendations
- The addition of a new appendix 2 detailing the debate and decision process
The BCC constitution published in May 2020 contains the new wording as proposed in the 16th March 2020 Audit Committee, not the change proposed by the chairs of the Development Committees.
5th August 2020 - Development Control A Committee
This meeting chaired by Councillor Donald Alexander uses the new 'Planning Committee Diagram v0.6' for the first time.
19th August 2020 - Development Control B Committee
This meeting, chaired by Councillor Tom Brook with vice-chair Councillor Richard Eddy, uses the new 'Planning Committee Diagram v0.6' for the first time.
18th October, 2023 - Development Control B
Councillor Poultney pushes back on the "refusal needs deferral" suggestion from an Officer.
Share this page
Feel free to share this page. Show this QR code to someone, and they can scan it with the camera in their device. Or just copy pasta the URL to your socials.