At the last meeting of the Standards Committee, thre was an item on updating the Councillors Code of Conduct On Planning Matters.
You can find the full officers report here. Chris Black noticed that something quite startling was being suggested by officers:
Members should copy and pass on any lobbying material, such as correspondence or leaflets they receive, to the Head of Planning and Transportation.
This would have meant that if anyone wrote to a councillor about any planning issue, the councillor would have been required to pass a copy on to the Head of Planning – Shaun Scrutton – or otherwise face disciplinary action!
Chris strongly opposed this. One reason is that it would destroy any privacy between councillors and members of the public. (What would be next? Tapping councillors’ phones? ) The other is that it wasn’t practical. On a really contentious planning application, 20 people might write to each councillor. That means that Mr Scrutton would have to receive nearly 800 copies of letters!
Thankfully, other members of the committee supported Chris on this – in particular, Cllr Phil Capon. And the sentence was changed to something reasonable:
Well done, Chris!
Chris,
I find this quite worrying, especially when linked to your recent posting on training for Cllrs on planning (Development Control Committee). You have made clear that 5 cllrs have been barred from being a member of DCC but it is also clear that RDC are suppressing which five. This means that residents will not know if their cllr can or cannot represent their interests. This cannot be democratic or right!
Conversely, RDC wanted all lobbying material passed on to them despite the fact that it is a constitutional right for residents to lobby their cllrs.
This sounds like ‘Big Brother’ wanting absolute control or am I wrong!?
PS Like Parliament, the council seems out of touch with its constituentsI think it would be a good idea for all lobbying material to be passed on – it might give Planning a better idea of what their residents actually think and want!!
This request by RDC is just astonishing and reflects the lack of knowledge of what is ethically right and wrong in this District Council. Chris, you are so right in that the residents who lobby you, in confidence, would not like this information being passed on to another party. Brian is right in a way, when he says RDC need to know what a large section of ratepayers in our district actually thinks of (some) of our Councillors and officers but by passing on material sent in confidence is not the way.
I would have hoped by now RDC would know what we think of some of them but by making this request, obviously either do not or could not care less! Astonishing!!
Mike, in case of doubt, my comment about passing on letters was intended as an ironic joke.
We elect cllrs to represent us and many residents might raise an issue with them, in confidence, which they wouldn’t wish to raise direct. This is their democratic right.
RDC is barring cllrs and won’t tell their electorate. Why? Surely they have a right to know? What is to stop this being used for party political purposes?
Lobbying is not illegal and I see no reason why RDC would even wish to have copies. Can Chris or anyone enlighten me why they even suggested this bizzare proposal?
Brian, the council’s aim was to keep things open and transpareent, but I believe their proposals went too far.
Another one was:
“Members should not agree to any formal meetings with applicants, developers or groups of objectors where they can avoid it. If a member feels that a formal meeting would be useful in clarifying the issues, he/she should request the Head of Planning and Transportation to organise it. The officer(s) will then ensure that those present at the meeting are advised from the start that the discussions will not bind the authority to any particular course of action, that the meeting is properly recorded on the application file and the record of the meeting is disclosed when the application is considered by the Committee.”
This would have prevented councillors from meeting with groups of their residents without having it organised by the council!
I queried this one as well and with the support of other councillors it was changed as follows:
“Page 9.8 (6.4). Members expressed concern regarding the wording suggested and wished it to be amended to read: ‘Where a Member agrees to a formal meeting with applicants, developers or groups of objectors because they feel that a formal meeting would be useful in clarifying the issues, where appropriate, they should request the Head of Planning and Transportation to organise it. When any meeting takes place Members should ensure that those present are advised from the start that the discussions will not bind the Authority to any particular course of action, that the meeting is properly recorded on the application file and the record of the meeting is disclosed when the application is considered by the Committee’.
The above wording would allow Councillors to continue to be champions of the community and meet with members of the public who want to discuss their concerns on planning issues. It was recognised that a commonsense approach should be adopted in deciding the level of formality.”