Agenda and minutes

To elect a chairman for the meeting.

As agreed at the last meeting and ratified at this meeting, Councillor Sandler was appointed as chairman of this and future meetings.

To agree the notes of the last meeting (attached).

            RESOLVED:

That the notes of the meeting held on 10 February 2011 be agreed as a correct record.

The meeting was brought up to date on the various items in the minutes from the last meeting.

Minute item 3 – it was noted that:

i)                    Democratic Services had offered up to the then Planning Portfolio Holder, as part of a review of area Plans South a budget saving, with the option to bring back Plans South to the Civic Offices. On consideration and after some consultation the Portfolio Holder decided that the Sub-committee should remain at Roding Valley School.

ii)                   The guidance for Declarations of Interests had now been changed and Councillors had been trained in the new rules.

iii)                 A report on Section 106 agreements had gone to the Planning Scrutiny Standing Panel.

Minute item 5 – The training on Permitted Development and Certificate of Lawful Development had been carried out. Clearer signing had now placed on the website for the Planning Portal.

Minute item 10 –it was noted that:

i)                    Early notifications of Appeals was taking place through the Members Bulletin.

To discuss recent appeal cases where officers recommendations have been overturned by the committee, and Members comments on webcast being used by the appellant as evidence against the Council on grounds of unreasonable decision making.

To discuss how officers on duty at the meetings and the Chairman could make it clear that non-planning related comments are not material to the final decision, so as to ensure that the final decision is a defendable reasons for refusal and not to be open to a cost claim, should the application go to appeal.

The meeting were told that officers had noted that appellants had been quoting comments made at planning meetings taken from the webcasts. They noted that Councillors and officers needed to think carefully on what they said at the meetings, such as categorically stating that they “did not like an application and never had”. They would need to temper statements like that by linking it in with the planning merits of the case.

The meeting discussed means to bring this to councillor’s attention. They agreed that a short training session could be added on to the end of a meeting that had a short agenda and carried out after the close of the meeting. This should be done as soon as practicable. Officers should include specific incidents (suitably made anonymous) to illustrate their point. They would also need to make it clear where a personal view expressed by a Councillor was appropriate (e.g. as long as it was linked to planning matters) and when it became inappropriate.

            RESOLVED:

That short training sessions be held after suitably (short) meetings for the various Area Plans Sub-Committees to inform members about making appropriate comments at webcast meetings.

During a recent claim for costs against the Council in respect of an appeal where the committee reversed the officer’s recommendation, the appellant’s agent was critical of procedures at the Plans Subcommittee. Whilst this was partly a procedural matter regarding the need for the minutes of the meeting to make clear that the final decision was made contrary to the officer recommendation, there was no summarisation of the main reasons for the proposed recommendation to refuse planning permission before the matter was put to the vote.

It is essential in such cases that the following procedure is followed:

(1)        A motion to refuse an application is put (with valid planning considerations) by a member of the Subcommittee;

(2)        That motion is formally seconded by another member; (if not seconded motion falls at that point without debate);

(3)        A debate about the motion to include:

            (a)        Comments from the Committee on the motion;

            (b)        Comments from the Planning Officer about the appropriateness of the reasons given/clarification of members’ wishes;

(c)        Opportunity for the mover/seconder to speak to their motion

(4)        Chairman summarises discussion and rehearses reasons for refusal;

(5)        Chairman calls for vote;

Chairman and officers need to confer to ensure that any of the suggested reasons for refusal are sound and defendable on appeal, before allowing the committee vote to take place. 

(6)        Vote and reasons recorded by Committee Officer and repeated in the minutes of that meeting.

The meeting noted that at a recent claim for costs against the Council in respect of a  committee’s reversal of an officers recommendation, the agent was critical of the procedures at the Sub-committee. It was essential that in such cases the correct procedures was followed. The meeting noted the point by point list of actions to be followed when  a motion to refuse was made. It was noted that 3(a) of this list should be changed to read “Comments from the Committee to add to the motion”.

Officers should help the Chairman on points of planning policy. Chairmen should make it clear what the reasons were and ensure that officers were comfortable with the reasons given.

The meeting noted that in exceptional circumstances the final decision could be deferred until the next meeting to ensure that officers could provide appropriate advice as to the clarity and reasonableness of the reasons put forward for approval or refusal.

It was noted that it was fine to defer it for more information but not in order to find reasons to justify the decision.

Asked if the council could win an appeal but have to pay costs on an invalid reason for the decision, the officer replied that if one of the reasons were invalid then yes the council would have to pay costs on that reason, even though they won the appeal.

As an aside the meeting wondered if the Highways Officer could be persuaded to say in their report why they made their recommendations and if they had visited the site in question. This would be much more informative than just saying they had no objection to an application.

            RESOLVED:

1)                  That the written procedure on dealing with motions to refuse planning permission, be distributed to all members as an aide-memoire; and

2)                  That Highway officers be asked to add their reasons for their recommendations and if they had visited the site in question.

Particularly at Area Plans Sub-Committee East, planning applications are deferred at the meeting to allow a members site visit to take place. Following the pre-arranged Member site visit in respect of the Retail Park planning application at Langston Road, Loughton earlier this year and following a recent meeting of Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel, it was suggested that in the case of major, “on balance” or more contentious planning applications, Members site visits should automatically be arranged by officers before the meeting takes place.

This would allow Members to have a greater understanding of the site and the potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area and amenity. It would however, take up more officer time, particularly if done during outside of normal working hours and may not be supported if done at weekends, which is the current situation when a site visit is required.

Officers are rarely contacted by Members prior to meeting taking place, despite the planning officer’s details being at the end of the committee report. If the site visit option is not supported, Members are urged to seek clarification on the application in this way, or indeed at any time during the course of the planning application. It is of course good practice for Members to look at the sites on the agenda before they attend the meeting and this can and believe, is done by many Members such that a more formal site visit may be unnecessary.      

The meeting considered the merits of having a site visit before an application went to a Sub-committee for any contentious or large application whose recommendation may be a ‘balanced’ decision.

It was noted that a lot of members carried out their own site visits before a meeting and were mindful that they did not want to delay an application by deferring it for a site visit at the meeting. They agreed it would be a good idea to have pre-emptive visits to those very few contentious or large applications that may need it. Once seen, it would enable a fuller, more detailed discussion to be had at the meeting. They decided that officers should initially identify these potentially troublesome applications and in conjunction with the relevant Chairman make a decision if a site visit should take place or not.

Officers noted that they now tend to show photos of the application site at the meetings which helped members in reaching their decision. It was also noted that there was only a short time between the publication of the agenda and the meeting, in which to organise a visit. However, potential troublesome applications could be identified early and a site visit arranged before it was put on an agenda.

            RESOLVED:

That in the case of the few contentious or large applications that may need prior scrutiny, officers are to discuss with the relevant Panel Chairman to consider the possibility that a pre-emptive site visit be arranged.

Councillor Bassett has previously requested that hard copies of planning documents are made available for Members to view, prior to the committee meeting taking place. In particular, given third party representations are summarised in the committee report, Members may wish to read the letters in full so that there concerns can be fully understood. Also, reports can sometime make assumptions on the facts and reading through documents would help to clarify concerns raised by neighbours, for example. Also, officers occasionally receive late items after the agenda has been published and again these should be available for Members to read before the meeting starts.

If anything, the Planning and Economic Directorate has in recent years been reducing the need to copy more plans, documents etc. and saved on resources by reducing photocopying plans, documents etc and instead scanning and uploading documents onto the website and the Council’s document storage. Given the presenting officer to committee needs the planning file containing plans, documents and letters for the pre-committee meeting, a further copy would need to be made which would be uneconomic and ultimately wasteful. This will be difficult, particularly for Area Plans Committee South who meet at Roding Valley School in Loughton where there is limited alternatives.

The committee reports do present facts, summary of representations and an assessment of the planning issues, taking into account all material planning considerations. This helps to keep the focus of the report on the relevant issues, preventing the reports being too long, complex and convoluted. The plans are viewable on the website and all reports have a quick link to the planning application plans on the website. The report also gives the details of the officer to contact at the end of the report should Members have queries or require further information. Unfortunately, this appears to be being under-used. On request, late copies can be e-mailed beforehand.

The Business Manager is also currently looking into ways of making letters of objections on planning applications viewable to Members from their own computers via information@work, preventing the need for hard copies to be produced. 

It had been previously requested that hard copies of planning documents are made available to members to view and if possible to Local Councils prior to a committee meeting taking place. In particular they were concerned about third party representations which are summarised on the agenda report. Members may wish to read the letters in full so that their concerns could be fully understood. However, officers have been reducing the need for copying over the years and thus saving resources. It was also noted that at the end of each report on the agenda is listed the name and contact details of the relevant planning officer to contact should members have any queries.

Officers can now scan and upload all documents to onto the website and Council’s document storage system. The Planning and Economic Directorate are currently working on ways of making background papers available to view on line for all members via the VPN and information@work system. They can also make this available for Local Councils to view.

            RESOLVED:

That a system to view background papers online is currently being designed and will be made available to Members and Local Councils as soon as practically possible.

Councillor Sandler has raised that there are still occasions where the quality of information forming part of a planning application, particularly the lack of a street scene elevation, is occurring.

It is a requirement of this Council’s planning application validation that applications for a two storey side extensions, new or replacement houses and other stand alone new buildings should be shown in the context of the immediate neighbouring buildings. Should officers not pick this up, the local council’s should bring this to the attention of the planning officer’s to seek this information and a response given following consideration. However, officers have been reminded to not validate a planning application without the street scene elevation, when considered necessary.

Members had raised concerns about the quality of information available as part of a planning application. Plans were not always accurate, contained sufficient information, had levels for the site or had a street scene elevation. They would also like amended plans to show what had been amended.

Officers replied that they worked to a national guide for applications, unfortunately that did not require a street scene to be included. It should be noted that the sub-committee were making a decision on the plans and application before them and in theory an amended plan did not need to show what had been amended. However, they could always ask the applicant or the agent to state what the changes were.

Officers noted that they did send a lot of the plans back and asked for better information such as indicating the slope of the land or a profile of the adjoining properties.

Members wanted more information with the applications and would like a general statement to go to applicants and their agents that the more information provided the better it would be. Photographs would also be very welcome. Perhaps this statement could go the website.

            RESOLVED:

That officers remind applicants and agents that the more information they can provide with their application the easier it would be for members to reach a conclusion and a general statement to this affect go on the Planning website.

It is just over 18 months since the last meeting and the matters raised here could otherwise form part of the items discussed at Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel, which meets more often and are timetabled throughout the year.

Officers are suggestion therefore that matters arising from meetings of the Development Control committees could instead form part of the terms of reference of the Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel.

The group agreed that a regular meeting of the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen was helpful. Any major items discussed could be carried over to the Planning Scrutiny Panel if thought necessary. The minutes of this meeting should also go to the Planning Scrutiny Panel for information.

The meeting agreed that they should meet on a yearly basis, unless officers considered an important issue had been raised and a special meeting should be convened.

            RESOLVED:

1)                  that this group meet on a yearly basis, unless a special meeting was deemed necessary by officer in conjunction with the Chairman;

2)                  the next meeting therefore should take place in September 2013; and

3)                  Minutes of this meeting should go to the Planning Scrutiny Standing Panel for information.

Members to raise any other matter of business

The following items of business were raised:

1.         Councillor Boyce raised concerns he had about the number retrospective applications now coming to sub-committees. It was postulated that applicants may get confused as just what they could build lawfully without putting in an application. Members would also like it to say on the agenda report that the application was a retrospective application. Officers reminded the meeting that they must be careful if refusing the application just because it was a retrospective application, they must have good planning reasons. They should be judged on its planning merits only. As for putting in the report that it was a retrospective application, sometimes they are describe as being “for retention”. However, officers will try and include the words ‘retrospective application’ in their report from now on.

2.         Councillor Bassett informed the meeting that the Government was bringing in legislation altering the permitted development rights for private householders and for industry; enlarging what they are allowed to build, in some cases doubling the size of allowable extensions. This would be mitigated by a corresponding rule not allowing more that half of the garden to be built on. Also, S106 agreements were to be removed altogether. They were also threatening to remove planning powers from local authorities that proved to be inadequate and hand them over to the Planning Inspectorate.

Once details were known Councillor Bassett promised to issue a briefing note to councillors.

3.         Councillor Smith made a plea that if Senior Planning Officers were to be given a chance to present at a Sub-committee that the Chairman of that Sub-committee is given advance warning; ideally by just a phone call, introducing the officer beforehand, so that Chairmen are not taken by surprise at the meetings.

4.         Councillor Smith wanted it put on record her appreciation for the quick thinking of Jerry Godden who had only a few hours to improvise an alternative means to show the plans at a recent meeting when all the AV systems in the chamber stopped working. Mr Godden had photocopies of the slides he would normally show and distributed them to members of the Sub-committee and members of the public that were present.

5.         The Group were made aware of a recent problem at a Planning Sub-committee when a Parish Councillor wanted to table some material on the night of a planning meeting and was told that it would not be acceptable to do this.

This was the correct advice, as it clearly states in the agenda, under advice to the public and speakers page and in our advice booklet “Your Voice Your Choice” that any further material must not be presented at the meeting. They are however, at liberty to send information to councillors before the day of the meeting.

On consideration, the meeting endorsed the current arrangements as they worked well. They noted however, that Chairmen did still have the option of accepting some material at a meeting if they considered it of exceptional importance.