Agenda item

(Director of Planning and Economic Development). To consider the attached report.

The Panel received a report from Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, regarding recommended alterations to officer delegation to improve planning performance against targets.

 

At the last meeting of the Panel, members had requested officers to suggest alterations to delegated powers for planning applications and enforcement matters in CL36 and CL56 respectively. The Panel considered recommended changes to the following:

 

(a)        Enforcement (Ref CL36 Paragraph 1)

 

Delegation CL36 (1) set out delegated authority to issue enforcement notices, stop notices, contravention notices etc, but if officers wished to serve a discontinuance notice to remove an advert, it currently required Area Plans Committee authorisation. Such action was likely to be rare, but, given that full planning enforcement action was delegated, it appeared not unreasonable for a discontinuance notice to be delegated as well. The Panel supported this.

 

(b)       Planning Applications (Ref CL56 Para 1, Sch A (f))

 

The current Delegation CL56 stated that planning applications were determined by the Director of Planning and Economic Development except in certain circumstances when they were instead determined by committee. This includes the following in Part (f) of Schedule A which currently reads:

 

“Applications recommended for approval on which there was more than one expression of an objection material to the planning merits of the proposal to be approved other than householder applications.”

 

In order to secure improved performance in NI157c officers recommended reviewing this to “two” rather than “one” expression of an objection, and expand in the case of householder applications to include “other applications.” The Panel agreed but with wording revised from that suggested in the report by officers. The following revised wording formulated by officers was suggested to read as follows:

 

“Apart from approvals for householder and “other” applications, those applications recommended for approval where there are more than two expressions of objections material to the planning merits of the proposal be approved.”

 

The Panel noted that “other” applications included changes of use, householder development, adverts, listed building consents, conservation area consents, lawful development certificates, agricultural notifications, telecommunications masts, shop fronts and vehicular crossovers. Officers stated that the Council was very close in achieving the challenging target of 93% set for this category, of planning applications, but there were some low contentious applications that went before a Committee despite no objections raised by Parish or Town Councils which could have been avoided and otherwise dealt with in time.

 

(c)        Paragraph 1, Schedule A - Proposed Additional Section

 

Paragraph 1 Schedule A – It was also suggested that an additional section (m) should be added as follows:

 

“Applications for extensions to the time limit for implementing planning permission, listed building consents or conservation area consents, unless there had been no changes to material considerations, including planning policy from when the permission was granted.”

 

The Panel noted that developers with planning permission granted up until 30 September 2009 where the time limit for implementation had not expired, could apply to extend their permissions. This allowed applicants to apply for new planning permission where the original consent which was in danger of lapsing. Amongst other advantages, this particularly helped improve performance NI157A, turn around times of “major” applications where a decision was required within 13 weeks of receipt. However the Panel had concerns that the question of whether circumstances had changed was a matter about which the Sub-Committee’s view might have useful local information. The question of whether something would or would not be delegated could not be known for certain under the proposed revision Therefore it was decided to reject this proposal.

 

(d)       Paragraph 1 Schedule A (h)

 

The Leader of Council had asked that there was a review of the “call-in” by Councillors which would affect part (h) of delegation CL56 that stated:

 

(h) “Applications which any member requests within 4 weeks of the notification of that application in the Council Bulletin should be the subject of consideration by the relevant committee.”

 

The Panel noted that the opportunity to call-in applications was currently open to any member of the Council. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had asked for a review of this because allowing any member to call-in increased the number of such references to sub-committees which would already effect planning performance against targets and because allowing any Councillors to call-in an application went against the principle of area based plans sub-committees.

 

The Panel noted the following options for meeting this request:

 

(a) restricting the call-in to the local ward member (s) for the application concerned; or

 

(b) restricting the call-in to any Councillor representing a ward within the Area Plans Sub-Committee area concerned; or

 

(c) making no change.

 

The Panel favoured option (b) as it emphasised the status of Area Planning Sub-Committees.

 

The other two suggested alternations to delegation below were not necessarily to improve NI performance, but to partly provide an updating of delegation and to respond to members comments.

 

(e)       CL56 – Paragraph (3)

 

Paragraph (3) related to trees and currently stated that delegated powers can be used:

 

“To determine applications for works to preserved trees (other than felling) unless subject to criteria (f), (g), and (h) of the preceding schedule and dispensing with requirements to replace a preserved tree, and to respond to consultations from Essex County Council.”

 

N Richardson’s suggested wording which read as follows:

 

“To determine applications for works to preserved trees, including felling (unless there is a significant risk of a claim for compensation against the Council, unless subject to criteria (f), (g) and (h) of the preceding schedule and dispensing with requirements to replace a preserved tree.”

 

The Panel noted that Planning Officers considered that in cases where felling was necessary or where there were compensation issues these should remain outside officer delegated powers and still be referred to plan sub-committees. The other reason for the changes was that the Essex County Council TPOs were being revoked and the Council completing a review of these cases as new TPOs. Reference to Essex County Council was therefore no longer required.

 

RECOMMENDED:

 

(1)        That Delegation CL36 (Part 1) be amended by adding the words “discontinuance notices to remove advertisements” after “Planning Contravention Notices.”

 

(2)        That the following amendments to CL56 be made:

 

(a)        That under Schedule A Part 1 (f) be revised to read as follows:

 

“Apart from approvals for householder and “other” applications, those applications recommended for approval where there is more than two expressions of objection material to the planning merits for the proposal to be approved”;

 

(b)        That the following proposed change to Schedule A Part 1 (m) be not pursued:

 

“Applications for extensions to the time limit for implementing planning permission, listed building consents or conservation area consents, unless there has been no changes to material consideration, including planning policy, from when the permission was granted”;

 

(c)        That under Schedule A Part 1 (h) paragraph be revised to read as follows:

 

“Applications which a Councillor representing a ward within the relevant Area Plans Sub-Committee area requests within four weeks of notification in the Weekly List should be referred to the appropriate Sub-Committee”;

 

(d)        That Schedule A Part 3 be amended by deleting “and to respond to consultations from Essex County Council”; and

 

 

(3)        That the proposed changes to officer delegation be referred to the Constitution and Member Services Scrutiny Standing Panel for consideration.