Conservatives Criticise Proposal For Major Changes To Planning Committee Site Visits
Cllr Hazel Noonan, Conservative Councillor for Cheylesmore, has today (Wednesday 18th May 2011) confirmed that Conservatives will oppose an attempt by the Labour administration to use the Annual General Meeting in Coventry Cathedral, at which the Lord Mayor for 2011/12 will be elected, for constitutional changes that could see Councillors who have not bothered to take part in the relevant site visit allowed to vote on key planning decisions.
The proposal, on page 240 of a lengthy document, would allow Councillors on the Planning Committee who have not attended site visits relating to the application, to still vote on the decision around it. Currently if the Planning Committee decides a site visit is necessary to gain further information or understanding of an application, that cannot be gained from a presentation at the Council House, then only those members who have participated in the visit to get this information may then decide its future.
Conservatives are concerned that this latest proposed change may not only make site visits pointless as members choose not to attend, but also means Councillors may decide significant applications without the benefit of the information a formal site visit would have revealed. This change could lead to decisions which are ill informed and occasions where approval is given by a majority of Councillors who did not attend the visit, whilst those who did vote against.
Commenting on this Cheylesmore Conservative Councillor Hazel Noonan, who is currently a member of the Planning Committee, said: “This latest proposal is very worrying. I know from experience that site visits can give Councillors a new perspective on a proposal that cannot be gained from a presentation at the Council House or talking with officers afterwards. Decisions taken by the Planning Committee can have a life changing effect on those living nearby, it is therefore vital that if the Planning Committee decides a site visit is needed, only those who have taken part should then vote on the matter.”
She concluded: “There is no requirement to make this change and no application has failed due to poor attendance at a site visit. My fear is that this is another example of changes being made to planning for the comfort and convenience of Labour Councillors, rather than the good of the city. I hope they will see sense and think again about their plan.”