More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
A Maidstone council committee has voted to remove a controversial power that gives the borough's planning officers the right to refer decisions of the planning committee that they disapprove of to another committee.
The move follows a recent wrangle over plans to build more than 400 houses next to Otham Church, when the council's officers forced councillors to vote six times in total before the council was finally able to refuse planning permission for the scheme.
The change was proposed at a meeting of the council's democracy and general purposes committee last night by Cllr Jonathan Purle (Con) and seconded by Cllr Michelle Hastie (Lib Dem).
It was passed unanimously.
Afterwards, Cllr Purle said: “The planning system is already stacked against those who want to oppose a development proposal.
"We aggravate this one-sidedness at Maidstone council by making it more difficult for our planning committee to refuse an application than possibly any other local authority in the area."
Cllr Hastie said: “I think this is very important with the public perception of how planning applications are handled.
She said: "I would like to see Maidstone working the same way as most other local councils.
"That means that the initiative with controversial planning applications should always sit with the planning committee because they’re the ones who have to answer to local voters.”
The Otham application that sparked the rebellion has now gone to appeal and the councillors' refusal may yet be over-ruled by a Government planning inspector.
The existing arrangements allow planning officers to intervene where they believe there is a risk the council would incur "significant costs" if a developer wins an appeal.
There is currently no definition of what is a "significant cost," but members were told that officers work to the rule that it is significant if the council is likely to be ordered to pay legal costs of more than £30,000 if it loses at appeal.
'We have to answer to the voters'
Their current powers allow officers to force the planning committee to rethink a refusal at a second committee meeting - powers of deferral. These are not affected by Cllr Purle's motion and will remain.
Currently, if councillors still want to refuse, the officers can additionally refer the decision to the council’s policy and resources committee for a re-think.
Officers will now lose that right, but a referral to the second committee can still be ordered at the request of both the chairman and vice-chairman of the planning committee acting together.
Because the vote will involve a change to the council's constitution, it requires the approval of the full council.
The motion will be debated by the full council at its next meeting on September 30.
