A member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.
A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.
A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.
Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.
Members should also ensure they disclose any other interests which may give rise to a conflict under the council’s code of conduct.
In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons.
Any member who joins the meeting after the start of the officer presentation on an item of business for determination or, leaves the meeting during the officer presentation or debate on an item of business for determination is not permitted to participate in the decision making and voting for that particular item of business.
Minutes:
The Chairman informed the Committee that before asking Members for declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests and other interests, she would invite the Monitoring Officer to address members on an issue that had been raised in relation to agenda item 5 – Planning application MC/14/2914 – Rochester Airport, Maidstone Road, Chatham ME5 9SD.
The Monitoring Officer drew attention to comments set out on page 27 of the report stating that a representation had been received by the Council alleging that if any Members of the Planning Committee voted to approve the Rochester Airport Masterplan at Full Council on 23 January 2014, those Members would not be able to determine the Rochester Airport planning application on an impartial basis.
The Monitoring Officer advised that Members of the Committee would not be deemed to have predetermined the planning application just because they voted at Full Council in favour of the Masterplan. The same applied to those Members who voted against the Masterplan at Full Council.
He advised that the planning regime in this country was ‘plan-led’, which meant that decisions as to whether or not to grant planning permission must be taken with regard to the local plan (which was always approved by members at Full Council), and any other material considerations. The Masterplan was a material consideration, and so Members were legally required to have regard to it and give it due weight when deciding whether to grant planning permission. He referred to a Government report on Councillor Involvement in Planning Decisions and advised that this recommended that Members of Planning Committees should get involved in planning policy such as the preparation and approval of local plans and other planning documents. In Local Government, Members had dual roles in relation to planning policy and planning applications and there was no conflict between those roles.
In addition, he referred to Section 25 of the Localism Act 2011 and the case law on predetermination which made it quite clear that there was nothing wrong with Members who had been involved in making planning policy determining planning applications based on that planning policy. Members would not be assumed to have predetermined an issue just because they had had some involvement in a related matter, even if they had a predisposition to vote a particular way in relation to it. In the leading case of R (Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland BC, the Court of Appeal held that the test for pre-determination was whether the Committee Members had made their decision with closed minds or the circumstances gave rise to a real risk of their having closed minds. Therefore, the fact that Committee Members had previously voted in favour of, or against, the Masterplan at Full Council was certainly not going to meet the legal test for predetermination of a planning application.
The Monitoring Officer further advised that Members must approach the decision with open minds and listen to all material considerations discussed at this meeting before deciding how to vote. In doing so, Members would not be deemed to have predetermined the application just because they voted at Full Council for or against the Masterplan. However, if any Member considered that they may have predetermined the planning application because they cannot approach it with an open mind (whether for or against granting planning permission) for any other reason, then they should abstain from voting.
The Chairman then invited members to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or other interests.
Disclosable pecuniary interests
There were none.
Other interests
Councillor Mackness referring to planning application MC/14/0637 (Land to the rear of 106 Pilgrims Road, Upper Halling, Rochester ME2 1HP) informed the Committee that as the applicant was known to him as an acquaintance, he would withdraw from the meeting for the consideration and determination of this planning application.