Agenda item

The purpose of this report is to consider revisions to the Planning scheme of delegation within the Council's Constitution.

Councillor Mrs Laws presented the report and stated that she is proposing some minor changes to the Scheme of Delegation in relation to Planning to assist with the efficiency and effective running of both planning services and the Planning Committee. She explained that the rationale for each change is detailed in the report and she outlined the proposed changes.

Proposed change 1:At the moment a planning application is called into committee if six letters of support or objection are received contrary to the officer’s recommendation and includes if the objections are received from the same household. Councillor Mrs Laws stated that those letters of support and objection are also processed right to when the decision notice is to be issued. Councillor Mrs Laws explained that the proposal is that the six letters need to be from different households and received within the 21-day consultation period.

Proposed change 2: At the moment the Chairman of the Planning Committee is consulted on all normal planning applications that are due to be refused by officers. Councillor Mrs Laws explained that the proposal is that the Chairman of Planning will no longer be consulted on those householder planning applications recommended to be refused. She made the point that the data indicates that only 1 out of 422 applications shared with the Chairman has been sent to committee which, in her opinion, illustrates the work required from both officers and the Chairman as not being commensurate to the benefit derived.

Proposed Change 3: The time provided for the Chairman of the Planning Committee to respond to planning consultations from the Head of Planning should be extended to the end of the working day rather than 48 hours at the moment which will provide the Chairman slightly more time to give considerations to the applications received.

Members made comments as follows:

·         Councillor Booth stated that he does not object to the proposed changes and he understands the reasoning with regards to the first proposal concerning changing from six people to six householders. He added it was recently discussed at planning training where applications are submitted and then developers and agents take advantage of the system and encourage letters of support and objection to be submitted from various locations. Councillor Booth stated that he believes that the proposed change does not go far enough to resolve that matter and looking forward further consideration could be given to making further changes which can tighten up that point even further, with, in his view, consideration could be given with regards to a geographic location of where the letters are received in relation to the planning application. He referred to the Local Plan, which included community consultations and the geographic area which needed to be consulted with concerning development in the rural area and, in his opinion, that is something that should be considered. Councillor Booth added that consideration does need to be given to those persons who are going to be impacted by development and when determining larger developments then there should be a different type of test which could be considered and, in his view, the whole process needs to be streamlined. He added that he does not have any issue with the second and third proposed change but asked for clarification with regards to the difference between a householder application and a minor application.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he agrees with the proposed changes presented by Councillor Mrs Laws and, in his opinion, the changes make perfect sense. He added that he reviews the applications but by implementing the changes it will free up more of his time to review the larger applications and the recommendations have his full approval.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws referred to the comments made by Councillor Booth and stated that regardless of the target amount of letters needed, if people are determined enough then they will meet that number and submit letters of support or objection. She expressed the view that it would be helpful not to have them from the same properties because it is so easy just to go to one property and obtain six signatures. Councillor Mrs Laws added that with regards to the locality concerning the weight given to letters of support or objection, that weight is given from neighbours and people in close proximity to the site and there is a degree when the responses are actually reviewed in planning, which every letter that is submitted having to be uploaded to the Public Access system on the Council’s website. She stated that the point made by Councillor Booth with regards to the current Local Plan is correct and this is due to be reviewed by the working party which is due to be set up for the emerging Local Plan. Councillor Mrs Laws expressed the view that the proposed changes are only minor at the current time but members will be included in discussions going forward with regards to the implementation of the Local Plan. She clarified that minor applications are less than five properties, brick walls and sheds and the proposed changes, in her view, bring with it cost effectiveness for officers time and the Planning Committee’s time and whilst it is pleasing to see the number of applications being received there needs to be consideration to the type of applications being determined at committee.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs Laws, seconded by Councillor Connor and AGREED that

·           the 6 or more unresolved opinions will need to from different properties and received within the consultation period. This will be for paragraph 88 (i) and (ii) of the Constitution.

·           the requirement for the Head of Planning to consult the Chairman of the Planning Committee on 'Householder' planning applications when they are to be refused be removed, and

·           the time provided for the Chairman of the Planning Committee to respond to consultations from the Head of Planning to be extended to the end of the working day rather than 48 hours (i.e. feedback will need to be sent from the Chairman of the Planning Committee at the end of the working day after the passage of 48 hours since the list is sent to them).

(Councillor Hicks declared that as he is a member of the Planning Committee he would take no part in the discussion on this item)