How to behave as a councillor determining tricky planning applications is to be reviewed by the Isle of Wight Council.
Some members suggested the review of protocols was only being done because people did not get the results they wanted when determining applications.
The council’s planning meeting heard earlier this week that the code of practice for planning may not be fit for purpose due to a lack of guidance and clarity.
Proposing the review, Councillor Chris Jarman said there were issues that clearly needed to be addressed regarding the advice they had been given, which was contradictory and at times inflammatory.
The code sets out guidance for roles including as a ward councillor and as a member of the planning committee. It has, the paper says, caused confusion when it comes to voting as a ward member, attending site visits and the decision framework.
External legal advice has been taken but is said to have often failed to provide a satisfactory conclusion.
A cross-party group of councillors will now review the policies, practices and protocols of the planning service, including the code of practice.
Not all members were in favour of the working group, however, with Councillor Chris Quirk, a former chair of the planning committee, saying it seemed to him it was a case of dissatisfaction of some committee members, who did not get the results and recommendations they wanted, blaming officers for giving bad advice.
Councillor Warren Drew also shared his concerns with the wider politicking that was taking place in the council, saying the review could go awry.
Councillor Matt Price said they did not want to add more pressure to the planning staff, and he could only be a part of it if it was respectful to planning staff, but it was a starting point.
Any findings of the working group will go back to the committee before it is taken further.
National Planning law is in chaos so no surprise that it’s just as bad locally. I think we would all benefit from knowing exactly what opportunities and options exist for both applicants and objectors and. crucially, what sanctions/penalties should be imposed for failure to follow the rules.
Unfortunately, no meaningful opportunities or options for objectors. You object, it ticks a box, the Planning Officer plays ‘NIMBY Bingo’ for a laugh then ignores them. It’s that simple. Not even Ombudsman judgements bring any recourse against the repeat offenders at IOW planning. Inconsistency is their god.
The people that should know what the regulations are, appear to not be applying them.
Mind you, how can they when they use certain regulations to turn an application down, and yet when the public appeal on the same grounds, they are told they do not apply or even appear to be ignored.
As the government and Whitehall continue to deliberately import hundreds of thousands of people every year, there is only one driver for planning in England (particularly the south) and that is mass immigration – we need an extra 100,000 houses per year to accommodate their arriving guests so don’t expect any local tinkering to make any difference to Whitehall demands for concreting over the countryside – unless this central govt policy(that the vast majority didn’t vote for) changes, then the indiscriminate building will continue
sounds like some councillors were not getting the number of brown envelopes they felt they were entitled to.