Cabinet Member: Councillor Dafydd Meurig
To receive
the Head of Regulatory Departments report
Minutes:
The Head of Environment Department submitted
a report which responded to concerns regarding the delegation procedure in the
context of decisions relating to Plas Pistyll. As part of the report, a
detailed account of the application's planning history was noted, along with
the current and previous Planning Delegation Schemes in Gwynedd. The Cabinet
Member noted that he had commissioned a piece of work to gather information
that would respond to the local discontent and the lack of understanding of how
the decision had been made for the purpose of identifying whether the
delegation procedure had been followed properly.
The following initial
points were highlighted by an individual Member:
·
that
substantial modifications and alterations to what had been agreed in 2012 had
been done under the delegation procedure.
·
a new
application should have been submitted in 2016 due to modifications to the
size, height and design of the plan
·
as the
nature of the alterations was more than what was considered reasonable, the
decision should have been called into the Planning Committee
·
that
the site was sensitive and within landscapes that needed to be protected
·
that
the modifications had angered local residents and members
·
Officers
were the only ones who could not see the impact
·
Who had
the right to modify and define what a 'minor impact' was?
In response, the Chair noted that there was
no intention to re-open the planning application but there was a need to try to
learn lessons from the situation. It was reiterated that the Planning
department needed to justify that it was happy with the procedure and that the
correct path had been followed and whether the delegation scheme addressed the
challenges.
The Monitoring Officer reiterated the
constitutional situation for the members and reported that the arrangements had
been followed in accordance with the thresholds in the Delegation Scheme that
applied at the time. It was noted that the application submitted in 2016 was an
application to amend conditions that included reducing the number of units and
modifying the design - therefore, the principle of the development was not
being considered when determining the application and it did not meet the
relevant thresholds for reporting on this type of development to the Planning
Committee.
During the ensuing discussion the following
observations were highlighted by the Local Member:
·
Accepted
that the 'technical' procedure had been followed, but in light of the
substantial impact of the plan, should 'alarm-bells' have been heard?
·
Should
the morality of the situation have been considered?
·
The
Community Council had received a letter referring them to the website which
provided information about 'minor alterations' to the application.
·
The
report was self-righteous.
·
Was a
threshold such as 'an application that the Head of Environment considers should
be referred to Committee', relevant on this occasion?
In response to the observations, the Head of
Environment Department noted that he sympathised with all opinions received,
the impact on the community and the history of the application. He reiterated
that the report referred to the procedure that the officers had followed in
order to reach their decision. He noted, unless local messages were shared with
officers, that it was not possible to understand the 'feelings' and views of
local residents. It was noted that planning was an objective field and so,
unless objections were presented, it had to be accepted that the application
was acceptable. Members were reminded that
the Local Member had the right to submit the application to the Planning
Committee if the application was contentious. No objection had been received
from the Community Council and so the recommendations and decision of the
planning officer were in line with the statutory requirements.
During the ensuing discussion the following
points were highlighted by individual Members:
·
Accepted
that the application approved in 2012 was acceptable
·
The
alterations / modifications submitted in 2016 were not 'minor modifications'
·
Common
sense would highlight that the 2016 application was 'substantially different'
·
The
thought process of some elements of the delegation procedure made no sense.
·
What
needed to be done was ensure that no further alterations were made to the Plas
Pistyll plans.
·
A
suggestion was made to review the Delegation Scheme so that this did not happen
again.
In response to the observations, the Cabinet
Member noted that alterations to conditions was in question here and so the
application did not meet a definitive threshold. Officers were not responsible for identifying
contentious issues / applications. Local members had the ability to do this.
In response to the observations, the
Monitoring Officer confirmed that when an applicant would submit an application
to modify conditions, the conditions were the only issue determined. It was
noted that many relevant thresholds were being considered by planning officers
and that they had the responsibility of 'reaching a view'. It was not easy,
necessarily, to create the rules of the delegation procedure in respect of this
responsibility as there were so many different potential scenarios.
In response to the observations, the Senior
Planning and Environment Manager emphasised that the application's planning
history was very important to the current situation as planning rights and
tourism uses already established on the site offered scope for developers to
re-develop the site. He reiterated that bespoke holiday homes, not houses, were
being built on the site and that they would be restricted to tourism use. In terms of submitting an application to
alter the application's conditions, it was noted that the application had been
considered in depth, that details of the plans had been shared, that a period of
statutory consultation had been held and that a delegated report had been
prepared (as was done with every application). He confirmed that he was
comfortable that the application had been dealt with and discussed properly,
that the issues had been addressed and assessed correctly, and that the
recommendations submitted were robust. He noted that there had been no public
objection to the modifications and therefore it was appropriate for the
application to be determined under the delegation procedure.
In
response to the above observations, the Members noted the following points:
·
That the
officers had gone beyond what was expected
·
That
Local Members and Community Councils needed to take a greater responsibility
·
Guidelines
had to be adhered to
·
That
there was a need to review / change policies relating to holiday accommodation
and holiday homes. Could this be
scrutinised? To be discussed at the
informal meeting.
·
The
original plan referred to flats, not individual houses
·
There
was a need to ensure that information was shared with Community Councils
·
That an
independent expert was needed to review the Delegation Scheme
·
Fundamental
alteration / change - difference of opinion / meaning - a clear definition was
needed
·
Officers
needed to evaluate evidence when 'reaching a view'.
The Senior Solicitor noted that ‘minor impact /
alteration’ encompassed a wide
range of alterations in design and that it was the planning officers'
responsibility to weigh up the effects of this.
It was proposed that the Communities
Scrutiny Committee recommend receiving independent legal advice from a
barrister, of its choice, who specialised in the environmental and
constitutional areas.
The Monitoring Officer added that, as the
matter was regarding interpreting and implementing the Constitution, objective
advice had been presented and the matter need not be taken further. He outlined
that the role and responsibility had been placed on him as Monitoring Officer (which the Committee could
not delegate or replace) to interpret the Constitution. As regards the scrutiny
procedure, how it scrutinised was up to the Scrutiny Committee. However, in
terms of commissioning a barrister, there must be clarity about what needs to
be commissioned and to what end.
In response to the proposal, the Chair
highlighted that the Scrutiny Committee had neither the power nor the direct
resources to undertake an inspection, but did have the right to ask the Cabinet
Member for the Environment to commission an independent report which would convey
a positive message to the public that lessons were being learnt.
It was proposed and seconded to accept the
report, but that further information was needed regarding clear definitions of
what alterations were.
The Monitoring Officer noted that it was
possible to review / adapt the delegation procedure if required, and look
further into the specific thresholds by evaluating the information.
An amendment was proposed that a barrister
was needed to look at the situation independently.
The Monitoring Officer explained again that
it was inappropriate to ask for the advice of a barrister as it was his
responsibility to give opinion on the constitutional process.
The
amendment to the proposal was not seconded and was not allowed.
A
vote was taken on the original proposal. The proposal fell.
The Chair accepted the proposal which was
seconded to request a further report on the Delegation Scheme which would
consider the basic matters, the thresholds for receiving an application to vary
conditions, the thresholds of the delegation scheme to be submitted before the
next Committee. It was suggested that the Head of Environment Department, the
Cabinet Member for the Environment and the Head of Legal Services provide a
joint report which would respond to the Members' observations as well as
consider the information and evidence submitted to the Committee.
In response to an observation regarding
referring the matter to the Ombudsman, it was noted that complainants alone
could take the matter to the ombudsman if a personal unfairness had been
experienced (and within an appropriate timeframe). It was repeated that
Councillors could not complain about their own Council.
It was proposed and seconded to defer the
discussion and to obtain an update to the report at the next meeting for
further consideration. A request was made for the report to reflect the
concerns of the members, the officers' observations, evidence submitted by
Councillor Gruffydd Williams together with the way forward to challenge the
relevant policies.
RESOLVED to defer the matter until the
meeting of 7 February 2019 and to receive a further report which would address
the matters raised in the abovementioned discussion
Supporting documents: