This meeting of the General Purposes Committee included a number of items on its agenda, but the most significant were proposals to restructure the council's planning committees, a discussion about the payment of compensation to a tenant, and the approval of the council's meeting schedule for 2025/2026.

Approval of compensation payment over £2000

A report was included in the agenda pack requesting approval for a payment of £5,670 to a council tenant.

The report describes the payment as compensation relating to a complaint about the time taken to repair the roof on the tenant's property. The report says that:

The complaint concerns extensive delays to roof repairs, and related interior repairs, and the poor communication relating to these.

...

Although this complaint refers to leaks going back 15 years, the first recorded reports date back to 2020 and we recognise that casework practice has improved significantly since this time.

The report says that the council has offered the tenant £4,670 in compensation and has also undertaken some discretionary repairs to their home in recognition of the inconvenience they experienced. The report says that:

We have also completed a number of discretionary internal repairs in recognition of the delays and impact on the household as follows: • A full kitchen replacement, including new vinyl flooring • A full redecoration of the stairwell and landings and redecoration works to three bedrooms • Replacement of internal doors

The report recommends that the committee note and approve the payment to the tenant.

Planning & City Development Committee & Sub-Committee Future Options & Committee Proportionality

A report was included in the agenda pack discussing options for the future of the council's planning committees, including the Planning & City Development committee and its sub-committees.

The report describes the need to review the structure of the committees and says that:

Following feedback from officers and Members there is a clear need to review the structure of the Council’s planning committees and sub-committees. This need has arisen due to a number of factors including:

• General housekeeping requirements regarding terms of reference for existing committees which require greater clarity on the delegations made to determine applications;
• Members and officers note a lack of focus and purpose for the Planning and City Development Committee. Multiple meetings have been cancelled for lack of business and agendas have often contained low impact items, some of which fall outside of the committee’s terms of reference and may have been introduced to make agendas feel more substantial to draw together 14 Members; and
• Inefficiencies in the underpinning committee make-up which no longer reflects the proportionality of the council, nor a fair balance of resourcing requirements between the political Groups.

The report goes on to say that the current Planning & City Development committee is unusual because very few other councils have a planning committee that does not make decisions on planning applications. Because the committee does not make decisions, meetings have often been cancelled or have included topics that are not strictly planning matters.

The report proposes two options to address this.

Planning option 1

The first option proposed in the report is to make some small changes to the current arrangements.

The report describes the disadvantage of this option, saying:

The disadvantage of this option is that it does not address the problem that the P&CD Committee has a lack of focus, and the option would maintain it as a somewhat constitutional anomaly with it only meeting periodically causing a potential lack of cohesion or purpose to the committee.

Planning option 2

The second option proposed in the report is to combine the Planning & City Development Committee with the Major Applications Sub-Committee to create a new Strategic Planning Committee. This new committee would have responsibility for determining the most complex planning applications.

The report describes the advantages of this option saying:

The advantages of this option are, by creating a new parent committee with a primary role to determine applications and additional strategic functions akin to some of the listed functions fulfilled previously by the P&CD Committee, this option offers a balanced approach. It offers robust governance, balancing the role of planning committees with others e.g. Policy and Scrutiny and it retains a space for public discussion of certain strategic matters in planning which do not relate directly to the determination of an application.

The report describes the disadvantages of this option as follows:

Following consultation with the Opposition Group concern was raised that by limiting the policy review function, to only five ‘senior’ planning members on the Strategic Planning Committee, all other planning members are losing their ability to perform this function from the current position. Those members would still be able to feed into the Planning Members Forum noted above however.

Furthermore, the option must be considered in the context of the current position whereby, in practice, for many years now there has been relatively little policy review undertaken or required by the Committee in line with the terms of reference and therefore a more streamlined, flexible approach may produce better outcomes. Additional comments received included a concern that if there are only two sub-committees as opposed to the current three, all Members sitting on planning would be forced to sit more often which is an added commitment, and that this would decrease the overall resilience of the planning system as fewer members would be trained in and regularly involved in determining planning applications. While both points are accurate, neither represent a fundamental challenge to the effectiveness of the planning committee system when weighed against the case for change. With respect to the concern regarding resilience, this option would see 13 members involved in the planning system as opposed to the current 14, and 15 in option 1.

The report goes on to discuss the implications of recent by-election results on the political balance of the council's committees. It explains that the by-elections mean that the Labour group is overrepresented on the council's committees, and the Conservative group is underrepresented. It proposes two options for remedying this.

Proportionality option 1 - retaining P&CD

This option assumes that the first option for restructuring the planning committees is chosen. It proposes addressing the issue of political balance by adding a Conservative councillor to the General Purposes, Audit & Performance, and Pension Fund committees, and adding one to the Planning and City Development Committee.

Proportionality option 2 - new Strategic Planning Committee

This option assumes that the second option for restructuring the planning committees is chosen. It proposes addressing the issue of political balance by adding a Conservative councillor to the General Purposes, Audit & Performance, and Pension Fund committees.

Programme of Meetings 2025/26

The final significant item on the agenda is the proposed programme of meetings for 2025/2026.

The report says that the proposed dates try to avoid major school holidays and religious festivals to make it easier for both councillors and council officers to attend meetings. It goes on to say that:

The volume of meetings required in Westminster, mostly as a result of the Licensing and Planning systems and the corresponding volume of applications which require determination at Committee, place significant pressure on the timetable of meetings.

The report recommends that the dates proposed for Full Council and other meetings are approved.