Agenda item

Minutes

To confirm as a true record the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 July 2021.

Minutes:

Councillor Jarman raised a point of order as he was aware of potential legal action involving the minutes and matters of the last meeting of the Planning Committee,  this had been confirmed by the Council’s legal department, it had also been reported in the press, he believed that any discussion and voting on the minutes would be reckless and undermined the Planning Committee and the Isle of wight Council. It would protract the legal process and generated unnecessary and disrupting discourse and incur costs, it would be inappropriate to go behind the legal process and propose that the consideration of the minutes and matters therein before conclusion of those legal proceedings, which was duly seconded.

 

The legal officer advised the Committee that the Isle of Wight Council were in receipt of an initial letter regarding the last meeting, it was not a pre action protocol letter and therefore not accurate to say legal proceedings had commenced. The time limit for a judicial review commences once the minutes had been resolved and the Planning permission had been issued. He concluded that there was no requirement to defer the minutes pending the outcome of the legal challenge, the minutes were not absolute final, they could be challenged in court.

 

Councillor Brodie sought a further point of order that the Chairman had indicated in writing to both himself and the Monitoring Officer that he would not take part in the consideration of the minutes of the previous Planning Committee and would excuse yourself form the meeting, He didn’t believe that he was in a position to deal with the point of order raised by Councillor Jarman and asked that he leave the room.

 

The Chairman advised that he had been about to explain that he would excuse himself from the item, he accepted the conflict of interest and was unaware that the point of order was going to be proposed and wanted to seek legal advice.

 

A short break was taken to allow the Chairman time to consider if he felt he was able to stay in the room for the consideration of the issues being raised.

 

The Chairman advised that as the Committee were moving into the issues regarding the minutes of the last meeting, he would leave the room to ensure the integrity of the Planning Committee, following advice from the Monitoring Officer, he then withdrew from the meeting.

 

He was asked by Councillor Brodie to confirm that leaving the meeting was his own decision and not that he was being forced out by the Monitoring Officer, the Chairman was not prepared to answer the question, he advised that as he was leaving showed he was independently making the decision.

 

The Vice Chairman took the Chair, he asked for Councillor Adams to withdraw statements that had been made against him and requested that he leave the meeting. He called for an adjournment.

 

The meeting reconvened and the Chairman sought a seconder to remove Councillor Adams from the meeting under Part 4B Procedure Rule 9 (Councillor not to be heard further) the request was not seconded and therefore fell. Consequently Councillor Adams remained in the meeting.

 

Councillors who had not been present at the previous meeting asked to seek legal advice to ensure that they were not required to leave the meeting.

 

The Chairman advised that as a point of order and motion had been made and duly seconded he suggested that the Committee move onto the minutes item on the agenda.

 

The Chairman formally proposed to accept the minutes from the previous meeting as a true record of the meeting, which was duly seconded.

 

The legal advisor advised on the point of order under Part 4B of the council’s Constitution. A point of order can only relate to an alleged breach of procedure rules or the law, the Councillor must indicate the rule or point of law which they consider has been broken. He advised that he had not heard anything that suggested any law or procedure had been broken.

 

A Councillor asked if the conduct of a Committee member be relevant if there was an outstanding code of conduct complaint, they were advised that it would be a separate matter, a clear breach of the procedure rules needed to be made. The legal advisor also informed the Committee that in accordance with the Constitution that the only part of the minutes that can be discussed was the accuracy.

 

The Chairman then rejected the motion put forward by Councillor Jarman.

 

Councillors Jarman and Adams then left the meeting.

 

It was acknowledged that those members who had not been able to vote or attended the meeting virtually were able to vote on the minutes, Councillors were not required to be in attendance to vote on the minutes.

 

It was noted that a vote in agreement to extend the meeting was by affirmation and that no challenge was made at the time of the extension of the meeting, all Councillors had remained in the room to continue with the meeting.

 

A vote was taken the result of which was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

THAT the minutes of the meeting held on 27 July 2021 be confirmed as a true record.

Supporting documents: