Minutes:
Councillor M Wilkes explained that in respect of Item 4a - DM/23/03325/FPA - Anvil, Abbey Road, Pity Me that he lived on the road in question, however, he noted that the Constitution referred to those voting on a matter and therefore, as he was not a Committee Member and not voting on the matter he did not feel there was an issue for him to speak. He added he would withdraw from the meeting after he had spoken if required.
The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that he had spoken with Councillor M Wilkes in advance of the meeting and had explained that the advice from the Director of Legal and Democratic Services was Councillor M Wilkes did have a disclosable pecuniary interest and that precluded him from speaking on the item.
He added that however, the decision was for Councillor M Wilkes, reiterating that the legal advice was not to speak and to leave the Chamber.
Councillor M Wilkes noted that if the advice was correct in terms of Councillors as individual residents, the implication was that all Councillors within the county could not speak on any application within their area. He added that he felt Paragraph 10 of the Constitution was very clear in terms of decision makers and Councillors who were Members of a Committee discussing, making a decision or voting, and therefore, as he was not a Member of the Committee, he did not feel that there was an issue. The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that the legal advice remained the same; that Councillor M Wilkes ought to leave the Chamber, but it was a matter for Councillor M Wilkes.
The Chair explained that he was happy in terms of Councillor M Wilkes speaking, noting that Councillor M Wilkes had been provided with the legal advice. He noted several Members of the Committee wished to comment on the issue.
Councillor P Jopling noted she felt that, as Councillor M Wilkes was not on the Committee and not voting on any application, there was no reason why he could not speak on behalf of residents. She added she was worried about the implication of the advice given and noted that the Committee would listen to all the points raised, however, the Members of the Committee would make up their own mind on the applications.
Councillor J Elmer explained he felt the advice set a very dangerous precedent adding that the 2006 Local Government White Paper on Strong and Prosperous Communities had set out a duty in terms of openness, as had the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. He asked that the advice would be looked at again.
Councillor L Brown noted she had been allowed to speak on an application that had been at the end of her road, she had spoken and had left the Chamber during the debate and decision making on the matter.
Councillor C Kay noted that he looked forward to hearing from Councillor M Wilkes on the application, adding he too felt Councillor M Wilkes should not be precluded from representing local residents.
The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) concluded by saying that he did not intend to debate this issue with Members.