Committee chairs reports were provided for Members’ information and four written questions had been received, as follows:

Cllr Chilvers put a question to the Chair of Environment, Enforcement and Housing, Cllr Hossack.

When attending committee meetings, non-committee members customarily - although not constitutionally - feel compelled to use the phrase: “Thank you chair for allowing me to speak even though I am not a member of your committee”.  This conduct is antiquated and brings nothing to the debating chamber apart from adding time and making us appear outdated as an organisation.  A simple “Thank You Chair” would surely suffice? Given it is now 2019, will the leader agree to dispense with this allowing the focus to be discussing the items on the agenda for our residents’ benefit and modernising Brentwood council?

Cllr Hossack advised that he would not dispense with the use of the customary phrase which he considered served a practical purpose as well as being polite and traditional: whereas at full council meetings all Members were able to speak and vote, using the phrase enabled the public to differentiate between voting and non-voting Members at Committee meetings.  He believed ceasing to use the phrase would be an erosion in standards and took the opportunity of referring to an erosion in the traditional standards of some Members’ dress in the Chamber as neck ties and jackets were not being worn as was expected of Councillors.

Cllr Aspinell put a question to the Chair of Policy, Resources and Economic Development Committee, Cllr Tumbridge:

Would the Chair of Policy, Resources and Economic Development Committee support a proposal that the Council undertakes a planning seminar to discuss the effects on the Borough of recent changes by the Government to planning policy and guidelines.  The aim of the seminar would be to discuss all aspects of the changes, its effects and how we locally could introduce conditions to protect our existing residents from the new development pressures.

Cllr Tumbridge advised that he welcomed questions from Members relating to serious issues such as planning.  He believed that discussion on planning matters fell to the Planning and Licensing Committee rather than under the auspices of Policy, Resources and Economic Development Committee.  However, at the 10 July 2019 PRED Committee meeting, one of the agenda items would be the programme of Members’ training, opportunities for which Cllr Tumbridge was a great advocate and supporter.  He hoped that the proposed elements of planning training currently being planned would address the kind of content that Cllr Aspinell hoped to discuss.

Cllr Tim Barrett put a question to the Chair of Policy, Resources and Economic Development Committee, Cllr Tumbridge:

Can the timetable for progression of the Local Development Plan (LDP) from this meeting to formal adoption be outlined and confirmed?

Cllr Tumbridge said that part of the question could be answered definitively in that the Senior Planning Officer was bringing a paper to the 10 July 2019 PRED meeting to outline the stage the Council had reached in the LDP process and how it would progress.

An engagement had to take place with the National Planning Inspectorate but when the inspector responded and dealt with the LDP was outside the Council’s control but it was anticipated that this would lead to the resolution of the LDP process in 2020.  No more detail could be given at this stage as everything depended on the inspector.

The paper provided for the 10 July PRED Committee meeting would supply all the available detail and Members would elicit any further information from officers at the meeting.

Cllr Tim Barrett put a second question to the Chair of Policy, Resources and Economic Development Committee, Cllr Tumbridge:

Does the Chair see any potential perception of a conflict of interest for the dual roles of Chair of the Constitution Working Group and Chair of the Policy Resources & Economic Development Committee  - as one committee leads on setting the rules and framework from which the other committee uses them to set policy - to use a sporting analogy; are they both referee and manager?

Cllr Hossack questioned whether it was appropriate for Cllr Tumbridge to respond as the question related to his possible conflict of interests.

However, Cllr Tumbridge responded as follows:

He was afraid that the question was based on false premise as the Constitution Working Group was a group and not a committee and reported to Full Council only which controlled and ruled the constitution and the rules of Council meetings. 

CWG existed within the framework of the constitution to give a mechanism so that cross-party Members could work with the monitoring officer and other appropriate officers to address different aspects of the constitution and bring forward recommendations to Full Council which made the rules.

There was no conflict whatsoever as CWG was a group and not a committee and had no decision-making powers.

Further questions were put to Chairs and responses received.