Planning Development Control: Process Improvement Programme (PIP) – Political Steering Group Report July 2011.

STATES OF JERSEY

PLANNING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL: PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME (PIP) –

POLITICAL STEERING GROUP REPORT JULY 2011

Presented to the States on 12th July 2011 by the Minister for Planning and Environment

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: C  R.81

REPORT

Introduction

During  early  2010,  the  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  and  the  Chief Executive Officer for Planning and Environment – now known as the Department of the Environment – have become concerned over a perceived lack of consistency of approach being taken within the Development Control service. Incidences highlighted included a lack of a standard approach in the use of conditions by officers, queries over the consistency of recommendations by officers against approved policy, and concerns over how officers communicate with applicants over process and outcome.

The situation was exacerbated by a recently published Committee of Inquiry report into one specific planning case which had been running from 2005, and which had also called into question processes and protocols operating over that time.

The Process Improvement Programme (PIP) was commissioned in the context of essential CSR cuts over the coming years and in the realisation that if Planning is to continue to deliver good buildings and protect the environment, it is essential that services can be provided at a lower cost through process efficiencies.

The aim of the PIP was to audit all current development control planning processes and procedures in connection with the processing of planning applications, and to deliver more robust procedures, eliminate unnecessary processes and effort, streamline the service, extend exempted development and save money.

Section 8 of the final report addressed issues that directly pertain to States Members, in particular the Planning Applications Panel (PAP) and the Minister for Planning and Environment. In response to the report, the Minister answered a written question in the States on 18th January 2011, part of which stated –

"The second section (of the report) deals with recommendations for change in the mechanisms of determination. In this area I am concerned that we need to fully respect the very special nature of the expectations of Islanders in respect of the determination of planning applications. Furthermore Islanders have a justifiable expectation to have direct access to the Minister who is after all responsible for all decisions emerging from the Department. I believe that a wider group of politicians needs to examine the report's recommendations in this  area  and  determine  the  best  method  of change.  Consequently  I  have decided  to  establish  a  small  group  of  politicians  to  consider  the  reports recommendations in this area and work will begin in the next few weeks. I will  not  take  a  personal  role  in  the  Group  as  it  will  be  making recommendations about my role. It will be chaired by the Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment who will be pleased to receive expressions of interest from Members who would like to play a role in participating."

Following this response, a Group was convened to consider the recommendations of the report as follows –

• Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour (Chairman)
• Deputy of St. Peter
• Senator F. du H. Le Gresley
• Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour .

Their Terms of Reference were agreed as –

• To examine, consider and comment on the recommendations which involve States Members – the Minister and Assistant Minister(s) and Planning Application Panel (PAP) Members – of the Development Control Process Improvement Programme (PIP) report produced by POS Ltd. in December 2010.
• Those recommendations are included in Section 8 of the report and also include recommendations at paragraph 4.100.
• The  Group  would  also  like  to  view  and  make  comments  on  the structure of the Process Manual that was identified as being important by the report.
• To report back to the Minister for Planning and Environment in a written format the findings in relation to the recommendations, and where  appropriate  suggest  actions  that  may  address  those recommendations, and to request the Minister to report to the States on the basis of the Group's findings.
• To finalise any report before the end of May 2011.

The Group met a total of 4 times and from the outset determined that the relevant recommendations  that  accorded  with  their  Terms  of  Reference  fell  under  4 main headings. These were –

1. Planning Applications Panel
2. Ministerial Decisions
3. Ministerial pre-application advice
4. Appeals against decisions.

The  Group  Members  felt  that  with  one  past  Member  of the  Island  Development Committee (IDC) ( Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour ), one very recent member of PAP (the Deputy of St. Peter ), and at the time of finalising their report a new member of  PAP  (Senator F. du H. Le Gresley),  that  they  were  happy  to  work  on  their recommendations without referring directly to other States Members. However, the Group did meet with the Planning Applications Panel at the conclusion of their work and  shared  their  broad  findings  with  the  Panel.  The  Panel  indicated  that  they concurred with those broad findings and made a suggestion over the functioning of the Panel which has been incorporated into this report.

COMMENTS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The comments are ordered in the references identified by the PIP report. Planning Application Panel Protocols

Prior  to  turning  to  the  recommendations  made  in  the  PIP  report  relevant  to  the functioning of the Planning Applications Panel (PAP) the Group would like to make a comment on the context of the role of PAP.

Firstly, and most importantly, there is no equivalent of PAP in any other part of the States machinery. Members of PAP are charged with discharging a statutory function in determining planning applications and exercising that function in some 200 cases each year. Consideration of applications takes place in a formal and public arena with all the decisions, comments and actions of the Panel open to direct public scrutiny. There is no suggestion from the Group that these arrangements should change, as it represents an appropriate and proportionate situation in determining applications that attract  public  interest.  However,  it  is  only  fair  to  acknowledge  how  unique  this situation is and recognise the circumstances within which PAP operates.

Secondly,  notwithstanding  policy  advice  there  will  always  be  an  element  of subjectivity in considering and determining planning applications. PAP will always be open  to  accusations  of  making  the  wrong  decisions  on  the  basis  of  subjective arguments, but this is unavoidable in the context of some of the decisions they are required to make. PAP do make their decisions with the best of intentions and on the basis of all the information that is available to them.

"Site Visits

4.100  Revise para. 11 of the PAP Code of Conduct to reflect the current arrangements made for site visits."

The Code of Conduct was drawn up early in the life of PAP and has not been updated to reflect actually how site visits occur. The Group were content that the current actual arrangements and that the Code of Conduct should be amended as follows to reflect current practice –

• Applications that are considered to be worthy of a site visit, so as to fully understand their context, will be identified shortly after the PAP Agenda is finalized. Often in conjunction with the Chair of PAP, a site visit schedule shall be drawn up and the visit is undertaken in the days immediately preceding the Panel meeting.
• If during consideration by PAP of an item relating to a site which has not  been  visited  it  becomes  apparent  that  a  site  visit  would  be beneficial, then the item can be deferred by the Panel for a visit prior to the next available meeting.

Members'  training  should  reinforce  the  purpose  of  site  visits,  which  are  solely intended to familiarise the Members with the site prior to formal consideration.

"4.101  Regularly  review  the  conduct  of  site  visits  to  ensure  that  no

impression of pre-emption of the decision is taken."

Members' training should reinforce the behaviours during a site visit, namely that specific  merits  of  the  case –  and  intentions  of  decision-making –  should  not  be specifically discussed, either within PAP itself or with anyone present on the site.

"8.13  PAP should be asked to determine most controversial applications. It

should be able to make a decision on all applications other than a major proposal of Island wide significance, or a significant proposal on  which  the  Minister  has  published  or  recorded  Ministerial  pre application guidance, or any proposal not in accordance with the Island Plan."

PAP should be the primary political decision-making forum in relation to planning applications. Only in cases where there is a not-insignificant departure from the Island Plan or the application is considered to be of Island-wide significance will the Minister be expected to become involved in a decision.

"8.14  The Minister should retain reserve powers to determine applications

by exception when not in accordance with the Island Plan and the PAP are minded not to accept an officer recommendation (known as the  cooling  off  period)  as  set  out  in  Ministerial  decision PE 2006/0012. (Substantial departures are required by article 12 of the Jersey (Planning and Building) Law 2002[sic] to be subject to a public inquiry after which the Minister would receive a report from the independent inquiry chairperson and issue a written decision.)"

The Minister would retain reserve powers to intervene in applications which are not in accordance  with  the  Island  Plan,  and  PAP  are  minded  not  to  accept  an  Officer recommendation.

"8.15  That training should be provided for any new members of the PAP

and for all following the 2009[sic] Island Plan's* adoption, and the issue of any new Ministerial guidance (see also recommendation for including staff in such training in the Staff Section)"

* this should be the 2011 Draft Island Plan

Training for PAP Members should form an integral part of their role. Training should include  broad  planning  principles  that  underpin  the  system,  along  with  specific training/discussion  about  new  policies,  Supplementary  Planning  Guidance  (SPG), appeals and Royal Court decisions.

An introductory training session should be introduced and all new Members of the Panel should attend. There should also be regular updates for all Panel Members of any relevant information.

Training should be provided in-house so as to reflect the Jersey perspective, but advantage  should  be  taken  of  professional  bodies which  may  be  able  to  provide resources.

"8.16  The  2007  PAP  Code  of  Conduct  should  be  amended  to  omit

references to possible PAP discussions with applicants, and to update the site visit procedures section to reflect PAP site visits which now take place before the Panel meetings."

See 4.100 above.

"8.17  Where a Member of PAP is conflicted it will assist the public if the

Member explains this when withdrawing from the Panel for that item. This will pass a clear message about standards and behaviour to any public  present  and  ensure  that  there  is  no  misunderstanding  or perceived of lack of interest on the Member's part."

Paragraphs 22–24 and 27–28 of the Members' Code of Conduct for Development Control (October 2007) relates to the declaration of interests by Panel Members in considering  planning  applications.  In  the  main,  this  advice  follows  the  States Members' Code of Conduct in declaring an interest. However, the declaration does not address any potential or possible perception of prejudicial interest by PAP Members when considering applications from within their own Parish or District.

So as to avoid any potential impression of conflict, it is recommended that any PAP Member representing a Parish/District which they represent shall withdraw from PAP for  the  consideration  of  that  item.  Further  the  Member  should  not  make  any representation in connection with an application which is to be considered by PAP.

This will allow Panel Members to be seen to be removing themselves as far as is practicable from creating an impression that they have any undue influence over the determination of an application.

It would, however, involve ensuring that in the rural parishes – with a Connétable and one Deputy – that both of those members should not sit on PAP at the same time. To do so would deprive the constituents of gaining political representation in connection with an application.

In addition to the above issues, the group raised a suggestion in connection with the make-up of PAP. The Group felt that there was significant merit in having a Chair of PAP  who  was  not  an  Assistant  Minister.  The  Chair  would  be  appointed  by  the Minister, but in separating that role from Ministerial or Assistant Ministerial office it would help clearly define the roles of the Minister and his/her Assistant(s) and PAP. The Minister may wish to consider whether he would like his preferred candidate for the role  of  Chair  when  he  nominates  Panel  Members for  approval  by  the  States Assembly.  This  would  mean  that  the  Chair  of  PAP  would  receive  a  similar endorsement of States Members as Scrutiny Panel Chairs.

"8.18  If  independent  planning  appeal  arrangements  are  introduced  (see

below), RfRs should be deleted from the delegation agreement."

See Appeals commentary below.

Ministerial Protocols Ministerial pre-application role

"7.23  These  are  set  out  in  the  decision-making  protocol  section  which

follows."

This issue was addressed separately in connection with recommendations concerned with Ministerial Protocols as set out in paragraphs 8.40 to 8.44.

"8.40  Planning and Environment Minister roles in guiding pre-application

discussions  on  major  schemes  and  promoting  development  to implement  the  Island  Plan  for  the  benefit  of  Jersey  can  be  vital. Departmental staff resources need to be harnessed to supporting the Minister in this role. To avoid unstructured approaches and promote transparent inclusive pre application discussions we commend to the Minister that for major sites –

• inclusive  ministerial  guidance  is  developed  through masterplans, planning and development briefs

• initial pre application meetings should always involve officers and  the  Minister,  in  order  that  the  Minister  always  has appropriate officer advice available when first involved in any pre application meeting (even if this means arranging a later meeting)

• a Ministerial guidance output is published following forums or other appropriate consultation, for guidance of PAP, the public, and developers, and

• the  Minister  needs  to  refer  other  enquiries  for  minor development to the officers to avoid getting drawn into such extensive  involvement  as  previously  and  reduce  the unreasonable expectations on the Minister's time on minor matters.

• To assist the Minister in changing expectations the proposed Code needs to make it clear that the Minister would only be expected to engage in pre-application discussions on minor applications if asked to do so by the Chief Executive Officer, Director or by an Assistant Director."

The suggested protocol from PIP (see Appendix to this report) appears fit for purpose in  that  it  sets  a  framework  that  is  practical  in  terms  of  allowing  pre-application involvement by the Minister, but limiting in terms of the influence of the Minister thereafter. The protocol sets out clear mechanisms of offering advice and importantly requires a public record to be kept of that advice. This public record would provide transparency of process AND provide guidance to other potential developers regarding the same or even similar sites.

The Group feels that the Minister should move toward issuing briefing notes on sites and  pro-actively  develop  development  strategies  for  sites/areas  or  types  of development. This is reflected in the current Draft Island Plan.

The  protocol  effectively  means  that  whilst  the  Minister  can  offer  pre-application advice, he/she would only become involved in determining applications if they were contrary to advice, policies (such as a Departure from the Island Plan) or of a scale that indicated Island-wide significance. Otherwise, PAP would determine applications in the context of public advice, policies and guidance.

"8.41  Planning  and  Environment  Ministers  should  determine  major

proposals of Island wide significance, or a significant proposal on which  the  Minister  has  published  or  recorded  Ministerial  pre application  guidance,  or  a  major  or  substantial  proposal  not  in accordance with the Island Plan."

As indicated above, the introduction of the suggested protocol effectively means that whilst  the  Minister  can  offer  pre-application  advice,  he/she  would  only  become involved in determining applications if they were contrary to advice, policies (such as a Departure form the Island Plan) or of a scale that indicated Island-wide significance or  are  in  connection  with  previously  published  or  recorded  Ministerial  advice. Otherwise, PAP would determine applications in the context of public advice, policies and guidance.

In considering an application the Minister should follow the procedures that have been adopted  by  PAP  in  terms  of  active  consideration.  At  present,  this  involves  the presentation of an item by officers, listening to representations in connection with the proposal and then allowing the applicant to make representations. Questions could be asked at each stage by the Minister to clarify the situation if necessary. The Minister should also consider maintaining current practice of asking at least 2 other States Members – whether Assistant Minister(s) or PAP Members – to sit with the Minister in an advisory role.

"8.42  All other non delegated decisions should be made by the PAP."

This recommendation has already been accepted in consideration of the PAP role (see 8.13 above).

"8.43  The principles of a Ministerial Protocol or Code needed to give effect

to the above are set out in a draft template in Annex F. They require:

• A clear indication in pre application meetings and notes of meetings  that  the  Minister  is  not  making  or  pre-empting decisions on applications.

• Officer presence in all pre application meetings to ensure public  notes  of  meetings  are  produced  and  actions  or negotiations  following  meetings  are  understood  and implemented by officers.

• An indication at any Hearing that any statement of ministerial guidance, or other pre application advice has been given.

• an  indication  that  a  Minister  has  not  predetermined  their position when determining an application, or recognition of being conflicted and withdrawal."

The Protocol as drafted in the PIP report is considered fit for purpose in this respect and is a proposed process endorsed by the Group.

"8.44  The Commission for Architecture's role should be recognised and

built in to pre application and application process as a full consultee, to ensure appropriate weight is given to its recommendations."

The Group recognised the potential importance of the Commission for Architecture's advisory role, and in particular the fact that it could offer an independent source of expertise for any States' Member. The Group foresaw a role for the Commission whereby it could advise on development briefs and area plans as envisaged by the Draft Island Plan as well as individual buildings.

As  to  the  role  of  the  Commission  as  a  full  consultee  for  application  and  pre- application  advice,  this  appears  to  be  happening  as  the  Commission's  role  has developed.  This  role  can  be  formalised  in  the  forthcoming  Development  Control Process Manual which would identify criteria and processes for consultation.

Appeals

"8.62  Promote legislative amendments to introduce appeals into planning

merits  and  failure  to  determine  an  application  through  an independent appeals commission or environmental branch/panel of the Royal Court, and consider appropriate fees to offset the costs."

The Group consider that a Green Paper exploring options for an independent merits- based planning appeals process should be brought forward as soon as is practicable. The Group noted that the recently published Committee of Inquiry: Reg's Skips Ltd. –  Planning  Applications –  Second  Report'  (R.38/2011)  made  a  similar recommendation,  as  did  a  number  of  other  reports  published  in  recent  years (Committee of Inquiry into Fields 848, 851 and 853, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence : Final Report  (R.101/2008)  and  the  Review  of  Planning  and  Building  Functions  by  an independent Planning Adviser, March 2006).

The Group wish to formally offer their collective services to the Minister for Planning and Environment for the development of that Green Paper should the recommendation be accepted.

Other Comments

Planning Applications Panel (PAP)

The Group shared their broad findings with PAP at the conclusion of their work. PAP indicated agreement with those broad findings and welcomed the comments regarding their particular role in the process of determining applications. PAP did ask that a further 2 issues be highlighted in how they function, notwithstanding Article 9A(7) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 which allows PAP to determine its own procedures.  That  issue  related  to  the  process  of  voting  in  relation  to  a  planning application being considered by PAP. There have been a few occasions where voting on an application has resulted in stalemate with the votes cast being tied. In other circumstances it might be considered that the casting vote of the Chair would decide the issue; however PAP felt that this should not be the case in determining planning

applications. If such a situation arose, PAP felt that the most appropriate course of events would be for the application to be referred to the Minister for consideration and, if appropriate, determination.

The second issue related to the drawing-up of the PAP agenda. There have been circumstances  where  applications  had  been  included  on  their  agenda  and  then withdrawn immediately prior to the meeting. There have been various reasons why this has occurred and invariably there have been a variety of peculiar circumstances that have led to the situation. PAP felt that once an application had been included on an  Agenda  then  it  should  remain  to  be  considered  by  PAP.  Any  change  in circumstances could be reported to PAP in considering an application, but PAP felt that they should not be denied the opportunity to consider an application that had been progressed so far as to be included on an Agenda.

Delegated Decisions

The  PIP  report  makes  the  following  recommendation  in  relation  to  delegated decisions –

"4.84  Levels of delegation should be reviewed to allow applications to be

determined by officers when there are fewer than three outstanding representations to which the officers have responded and shown how they  have  balanced  those  representations  in  their  decision  (not necessarily resolved these representations)"

The suggestion was made in the context of cutting down the number of applications that  fell  to  be  considered  by  PAP.  The  Minister  noted  the  recommendation  but ultimately rejected it as he felt that there was an expectation that all applications with outstanding  and  unresolved  objections  should  be  considered  by  elected representatives.

Members of the Group would like to reconsider this issue at a future date when information can be gathered that identifies how many applications of a similar nature actually reach PAP. If it is a significant number then there may be some merit in exploring a potential mechanism to allow speedy decisions that are in line with policy other than their consideration by PAP. If the number is relatively low then there is an argument to retain the current system.

Exempt Development

Section 6 of the PIP report – "Minor development: review of exempt development in Jersey" – provided comment on the potential scale of reduction in the number of applications  through  an  extension  of  exempted  development.  Exempted –  or permitted – development is development that has been granted planning permission by virtue of the General Development Order and covers works such as minor residential extensions, domestic sheds and outbuildings, small works to commercial buildings and other similar modest and frequent types of development.

There was a general conclusion, backed by some 9 specific recommendations, that the extent of development allowed by the General Development Order (GDO) was too low and should be revised to allow more development to occur without the need for an application for planning permission. This would ease the burden on householders and

businesses, and in turn reduce the number of applications required to be processed by the Department. The PIP report suggests that extension of exempted development would be achieved through further amendments to the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2008, or, preferably for users, by a revised consolidated Order.  Planning  permission  is  deemed  to  be  permitted  by  Ministerial  Order  for development set out in a Schedule to the Order.

The suggestion of altering this extent was echoed in the Committee of Inquiry: Reg's Skips Ltd. – Planning Applications – Second Report' (R.38/2011). Since receipt of the PIP report, a revised GDO has been prepared. The Committee of Inquiry had the benefit of appraising themselves of the most recent proposed changes and felt that the changes do "not go far enough to enable a sufficient reduction in workload to be achieved, let alone an appropriate regulatory loosening". The Committee of Inquiry's report then goes on to suggest "To start things off, we recommend that the Minister invites his recently formed Political Steering Group to report on the matter for the (Environment) Scrutiny Panel's benefit. This would in our opinion be a very good subject for what we understand could well be the distinguished new Group's first published report."

The Group acknowledge this suggestion and would wish to confirm to the Minister that if he is so minded then they would undertake this task.

Development Control Process Manual

The third Term of Reference of the Group was to have an oversight of the proposed Development  Control  Process  Manual.  Unfortunately,  during  the  timescale  of  the Group's existence and the desire to report on the PIP report as soon as possible, there has not been an opportunity to present a comprehensive report as to the progress of the Manual. This work is in hand, and a working, but not comprehensive, copy of the Manual will be available in the near future. Should the Group be asked to continue by the Minister, this oversight role could be integrated into its function.

Conclusion

The Group concurred with the recommendations of the PIP report in relation to the involvement of politicians in the development control process and the determination of planning applications. In particular, the Group felt that the introduction of a Protocol that  guided  any  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  in  their  involvement  in particular projects, either at pre-application stage or in the process of determining an application,  would  remove  any  opportunity  for  misunderstandings  about  how proposals should be considered and strengthen transparency and accountability.

The introduction of a Ministerial Protocol would underline the importance that PAP carried  in  determining  planning  applications  in  a  forum  that  did  not  expose  any individual  to  particular  pressures  or  expectations,  and  by  virtue  of  breadth  of membership  would  be  viewed  as  a  consensual  or  majority  decision.  Further,  the appointment of a Chair of PAP that was essentially endorsed by the States Assembly would introduce an element of support from the legislature as a whole to the PAP structure.

In considering the PIP report and indeed the subsequent Committee of Inquiry: Reg's Skips Ltd. – Planning Applications – Second Report' (R.38/2011), the Group felt that

there were still tasks to be pursued. Investigations into an independent merits-based appeals process, reviewing exempt development rights, overseeing the establishment of  a  process  manual  for  planning  applications  and  considering  the  structure  and provision of Member training are all tasks which should be progressed. The Group would be willing to continue with these tasks.

APPENDIX

Template  for  Code  of  Conduct  for  Minister  in  Pre-Application  and  Application determination

Pre-Application Role

The Minister should only be involved in pre-application discussions and guidance on major proposals or proposals of Island-wide significance, unless requested to become involved by the officers. All pre-applications with Ministerial involvement should, in every case –

• be with officers present
• be by appointment to allow time for preparation
• be with ministerial guidance, officer note of advice and/or conclusions sent to proposer and recorded on file
• avoid lobbying and explain the Minister will not be able to determine an application on which lobbying has occurred
• include  a  statement  in  the  note  of  the  pre-application  discussion  that  the Minister has not made or pre-empted any decision on the application
• include  a  statement  in  the  hearing  report  of  the  Minister's  recorded  pre- application advice or guidance and that the Minister has not pre-determined him or herself on the application.

If either of the last 2 bullet points cannot be included, then the Minister is conflicted and should not determine the application.

The Minister should pass requests for advice or representations on minor proposals to the case officer without comment.

If pre-application discussion and guidance is of the following categories, either –

• a substantial or major departure, or
• a proposal of Island-wide significance,

the Minister will publish guidance and make it publicly available as soon thereafter as possible, following planning forums or other inclusive public consultation.

If  pre-application  discussions  or  guidance  are  offered  on  lesser  applications,  the officers will record that advice and ensure it is publicly available when any ensuing application is submitted, and incorporated in the officer report to a PAP or Ministerial Hearing.

Potential Interests and Pre-application and Application Stages If –

• there is a direct or indirect financial interest or a prejudicial interest, or
• the Minister has been lobbied, or
• the Minister has been subject to personal approaches or personal interests he or she would not be comfortable disclosing,

the Minister should regard him/herself as conflicted on receipt of the application and should  not  determine  the  application,  to  ensure  public  misconceptions  of  undue influence do not arise.

If the Minister is conflicted, the PAP or Assistant Minister, subject to PAP Code of Conduct, will be responsible for determining the decision.

Application Determination

The  Minister  should  only  use  call-in  powers  exceptionally.  The  exceptions  will normally be –

• Substantial departures from the Island Plan
• Proposals of Island-wide significance
• Proposals  where  there  is  published  ministerial  guidance  or  recorded  pre- application advice for major proposals.

In all cases when the Minister does decide to use call-in procedures, the reasons for the  intervention  will  be  publicly  recorded,  and  any  proposed  "call-in"  will  be discussed with the officers prior to the Minister using reserve call-in powers.

All applications determined by the Minister will be determined after a Public Inquiry or  Ministerial  Hearing  with  the  Minister  supported  by  at  least  2 Members.  The Members at a Ministerial Hearing need to allow a full explanation of all material considerations to be given by the presenting officer, followed by a full audible debate to assist all those present to see how material considerations are being balanced and a decision is made.

Full reasons for a decision should normally be given in writing, after the Hearing, as part of the public record of the decision.

Where the Minister does not propose to follow officer recommendations, then the decision should be deferred to ensure a full record of considerations and professional advice on appropriate enforceable conditions or reasons can be given to the Minister and considered at a further Hearing or in a subsequent written Ministerial Decision.