| |
From 1 April 2011, Development Control (the Council function dealing with planning applications) will become Development Management, reflecting the increasing move away from a simple regulatory process and an emphasis on collaborative working and effectively managing projects and their delivery.
This has become particularly important in this District, with its designation as a growth point, the Council’s regeneration agenda and the large number of major developments.
At the same time, there have been continuing financial pressures on the Council. Considerable savings have had to be made. The Development Control Section has become very lean and can no longer rely on others to undertake important work. New ways of working must be found.
|
At present, some 90% of decisions on planning applications are made by officers in accordance with an approved scheme of delegation set out in the Council’s Constitution. The remaining decisions are made by the Planning Committee following consideration of detailed written reports, the preparation of which absorbs considerable resources.
Given these circumstances, consideration has been given to whether any changes in delegated powers may be made to reduce the number of applications being reported to the Planning Committee. This has taken into account the comments made from time to time by various parties that applications are unnecessarily reported, the recommendations made by an outside consultant commissioned by the Council several years ago, the fact that a revision is required in any event to correct anomalies and reflect legislative changes and practice elsewhere.
|
At present, applications are reported to the Committee for the following reasons:
· There are 3 or more letters from third parties expressing views contrary to the intended decision;
· The applicant is a Member of the Council;
· A Member of the Council requests for Planning reasons that the application is considered by the Planning Committee.
· The application is for a telecommunications development; or
· The circumstances of the application otherwise justify it being reported to the Committee.
There are a number of ways in which delegation to officers might be increased. These are identified below and you are invited to consider these and indicate whether you agree or disagree.
Comments have been invited directly from elected Members and stakeholders, including agents and Parish and Town Councils, on these different options. Your views would be welcome on the indicated options and any related comments within the next 21 days.
|
|
1.
|
Bring all submissions under the Town and Country Planning Acts within the same delegation arrangement - but see exceptions below (at present, some such as Conservation Area Consent, are excluded)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
All applications for works to trees to be delegated irrespective of the number or nature of third party comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
All applications for Lawful Development Certificates for existing uses or developments to be delegated irrespective of the number or nature of third party comments (decisions on such applications are based on matters of fact, not policies or harm)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
|
All consultations by Statutory Undertakers or other Local Authorities to be delegated irrespective of the nature or number of third party comments (this has previously been agreed but, for some reason, is omitted from the present Constitution)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
All submissions for telecommunications development to be dealt with in the same manner as other applications
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
All requests by Councillors for applications to be called in for consideration by the Committee to be subject to the agreement of the Chairman of the Committee in consultation with the Development Control Manager
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
Applications submitted by Councillors not to be reported to the Planning Committee unless they give rise to at least one representation raising a contrary view
|
|
|
|
|
|
If introduced, these changes together would make little difference to the number of applications reported to the Committee or to officer workload
Accordingly, additional options have been identified, as follows:
|
|
8.
|
Increase the threshold for contrary representations from 3 to 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
Increase the threshold for contrary representations from 3 to 8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.
|
Increase the threshold for contrary representations from 3 to 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first of these options would reduce the number of applications determined by Committee by 35%; the third option would reduce the number of reports by 57%
|
| |