Agenda item

To consider the Local Plan Project Initiation Document.

The Local Plan and New Communities Manager presented the report with a revised version of the Project Initiation Document (PID). He said that the PID had been updated following the recent meeting of the Local Plan Leadership Group (LPLG) and that it was intended to go forward to Cabinet on 20 October 2020 for approval.

Councillor Criscione referred Members to the Project Governance diagram shown at Paragraph 3.16 of the report. He said that he wanted to ask questions around procedure, decision-making and constitutionality.  He asked Councillor Evans, as Portfolio holder, whether the LPLG was turning out in practice to be a decision-making body. He also raised concerns about the role of the Portfolio holder, the fact that the LPLG Chair was not a Cabinet Portfolio holder and whether Members were comfortable with the possible overlaps between the LPLG and Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Evans, as the Portfolio holder, said that the LPLG had acted as a review body and made recommendations but that it did not have an Executive role. He said that the decision as to who chaired the LPLG had been taken some time ago and that this had given a degree of checks and balances to the processes. The LPLG Terms of Reference gave him as the Portfolio holder the right to attend the LPLG.

Councillor Storah, as the Chair of LPLG, said that the Project Management clarification had been very helpful and he recognised that there might still be some overlap between the LPLG and Scrutiny. He said that the LPLG made recommendations but Scrutiny would look at the mechanics of how recommendations had been made and that this would then go forward to Cabinet. He also stated that the intention was to review governance arrangements on a six monthly basis.

Councillor Coote said that he considered it to be unconstitutional for a Cabinet member to chair the LPLG and that he was satisfied with the governance arrangements in place.

Councillor Criscione said that the PID was the key to setting out the roles and responsibilities of all bodies involved in the Local Plan processes.

Councillor Evans outlined his Portfolio holder responsibilities and detailed his schedule of various meetings with leading Members and explained the links with the Corporate Overview Board (COB).

Councillor Coote said he was happy with the explanations given and that the Local Plan should be overseen by the Leader and Chief Executive.

The Leader outlined his regular 1-2-1 meetings with Councillors Evans and Storah and his contact arrangements with the Chief Executive. In response to a question from the Chair as to whether he was a project sponsor, the Leader said that technically he saw himself as a sponsor.

In response to a question from Councillor Driscoll, the Assistant Director – Planning said that the Local Plan would be reviewed every five years and there would be no need to go back to the Government.

At this point the Chair asked for the consent of the meeting to proceed beyond the two hour period. This was agreed.

The meeting was then adjourned at 8.56pm for a comfort break.

The meeting was reconvened at 9.06pm.

Councillor Sell said that there was Members’ agreement that the Council needed to get the Local Plan right. He said there had been two failed attempts in the past thirteen years and that, in the process, residents’ trust had been lost. He said he had worked with Councillor Storah and agreed with Councillor Coote that proposed arrangements were the right way round. He said that he shared Councillor Criscione’s concerns about the links between the LPLG and Scrutiny and said that Scrutiny should add value and not duplicate the work of the LPLG.

Councillor Storah responded to an earlier question from Councillor Criscione as to where the LPLG got its power from. He said that the LPLG did not have power, it just made recommendations; power was awarded by the Executive.

The Chair said that various Members had zeroed in on the Project Governance diagram shown at para 3.16 of the report. He said that various concerns about “the wooliness” of accountability and responsibilities had been expressed. He said he did not think that the Committee was happy about the process for project governance. He said that he was particularly concerned about the role of the COB.

Councillor Evans said that he would bring a paper to the next Scrutiny meeting that explained how the governance arrangements actually worked in practice.

Members supported this way forward and the Chair accepted this offer.

The Director – Public Services said that the COB was chaired by the Chief Executive and that it was a vehicle that ensured that Members were given robust advice as informed by a range of officers. He said that all reports went through COB before the LPLG. He said that his understanding was that the Leader and the Chief Executive were jointly Project sponsors with distinctive roles.

Councillor Criscione suggested that an additional role should be added to paragraph 3.17 of the report and that should be to show the Leader as Member Project Sponsor.

Councillor Coote proposed a motion that the Local Plan Project Initiation Document be recommended to Cabinet subject to the addition of the Leader as Member Project Sponsor in paragraph 3.17 of the report and subject to Councillor Evans bringing forward a document that clarified how the governance arrangements actually worked in practice.

Councillor Driscoll seconded the motion. There was no dissent.

RESOLVED to approve the motion.