THE CHAIR of the Thurrock Council Planning Committee may be about to counter recent criticisms by Thurrock Conservatives over planning decisions made by his committee.
Cllr Terry Hipsey was singled out for mention by Aveley councillor Maureen Pearce in a motion last month, that focussed on the decision by both a planning inquiry and the secretary of state to overturn an approval for 501 homes in Purfleet Road, Aveley.
Cllr Maureen Pearce left no stone unturned as she criticised the original planning decision. And as you will see from her four minute speech, she went further and made specific reference to the Collison report of 2010.
At its heart, the Collison report questioned the "motives" of councillors on the committee back in 2010 and also said that it left "interested observers may conclude that some councillors are working to alternative unstated agendas."
Among the recommendations was that if councillors were to meet developers then the should be accompanied by a council officer.
In an uncanny echo of the language of the Collison report, cllr Maureen Pearce made reference to members of the planning committee being persuaded by "developers bearing gifts…and a nice little package."
But she also concludes with a reference to the report: "It taints us all when councillors’ motives of making decisions flies in the face of common sense, natural justice."
Cllr Hipsey, who took over the running of the committee in 2010 has tabled the following question for Wednesday nights council meeting.
“Over the last couple of months Conservative politicians in Thurrock have started speaking out and referring to the "Collinson report" which I believe was published several years ago.
"Would the Cabinet Member kindly refresh our memories as to why the report was needed, exactly who it was referring to and under who’s leadership and administration this report was issued into the public realms?”
What may be of more interest is what cllr Hipsey’s supplementary/second question might be.
Cllr Hipsey is a keen boxing fan and so who knows if it will be a cheeky jab, a low blow or a haymaker of an upper cut. Seconds out….
Background
Amongst the criticisms, questions, inferences and recommendations made in the Collison report were:
1. "An absence of adequate explanation of decisions inevitably raises questions about the motives of those councillors."
2. "The fact that the Local Development Framework Working Group was adopting proposals without adequate stated justification left the process failing a test of transparency and open to all manner of speculation as to the basis of those proposals."
3."Where Committee decisions are made contrary to officer recommendations which are based on policy, and those decisions are made without adequate explanation, interested observers may conclude that some councillors are working to alternative unstated agendas.
4."It is essential that councillors adopt practices that leave them above suspicion of receiving inappropriate influence."
5."Councillors appear to be receiving correspondence relevant to the determination of planning applications and LDF preparation but not declaring this.
6. "The style of the Chair is not always conducive to good working relationships between him and officers with reference made to officers being talked down and not able to offer advice at meetings
The report traces the "dysfunctionality" of the committee to the role and remit of the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation’s (DC) planning function. It makes reference to the controversy over 76 High Street, Grays and the development of an "Us and Them" mentality.
Mr Collison said: "A divergence of views regarding a proper approach to Green Belt issues has been a major impediment to improved working arrangements".
The report makes clear that the government and a number of other agencies have a task to bring at least 18,500 homes by 2021 but with the committee grinding to a halt
"Few new houses are being built and no plans were in place to make sure that this will increase in future. As a result, Thurrock is in danger of not having enough new houses to meet future growth needs.
The report charts a series of decisions that Mr Collison, with 35 years of experience in local government, brought more questions than answers with regard to transparency and correctitude.
He makes specific reference to the high number of officer recommendations overturned by the members  with 14 cases in the six month period May to October 2009 alone.
He said: "I have found little or no merit in several committee reversal decisions. Indeed decisions in some cases appear to be without proper justification. Green Belt considerations have in particular not been properly applied…
"At the Planning Committee meeting held on 7th January 2010 it was resolved to grant two planning permissions where no reasonable decision maker could have made those decisions.
"Should a permission of that nature be challenged in the High Court, the council would have great difficulty in justifying its position and there is a distinct risk that the permission would be overturned. Officer reports and advice at meetings have been clear in explaining the constraints on the discretion of Members of the Planning Committee in decision making.
"Where Committee decisions are made contrary to officer recommendations which are based on policy, and those decisions are made without adequate
explanation, interested observers may conclude that some councillors are working to alternative unstated agendas.
Mr Collison has gone on to make twenty-one recommendations to the council including webcasting of meetings but perhaps the most pertinent for councillors is:
Recommendation 10: "The Code of Conduct relating to Planning Matters.. to include the requirement that Members should not meet developers or agents for discussions without a Senior Planning Officer present".
Mr Collison has made it clear that the finds it: "Essential that councillors adopt practices that leave them above suspicion of receiving inappropriate influence.
"Councillors appear to be receiving correspondence relevant to the determination of planning applications and LDF preparation but not declaring this. This is not considered to be conducive to transparent and sound plan preparation."
