Agenda and minutes

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

None reported.

(Assistant to the Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

None reported.

To note and agree the minutes from the last meeting of this Panel held on  21 January 2008.

Noted subject to the inclusion of R Sharp in the list of officers present.

Attached.

J Preston, the Director of Planning and Economic Development spoke to the Panel about Beacon Status Councils. There had been four councils with Beacon Status present at a recent presentation in London. The District Council would benefit from meeting with Beacon Councils to disseminate good practice andthe opportunities of Beacon Status. It would be profitable to get one of these Beacon Council to address this Panel, perhaps to ask Harlow or East Herts Council to attend and to share the costs. It may also be advisable to get the Local Councils involved. However, this would depend on the remit of the proposed new Standing Panel.

A few Planning Agents have been invited to the meeting to give the Panel their impression of our system and to enable the Panel to question them in return.

The Director of Planning and Economic Development had invited Planning Agents to the Panel, they introduced themselves to the panel as follows:

(1)        Pamela Merritt – Architect of Merritt Design

(2)        David Sadler – Architect

(3)        Jackie Pepper – Chartered Town Planner and Senior Partner of JSP

(4)        Charlie Biss – London based architect

(5)        Keith Everitt – architect, works for Tooley Foster in the Buckhurst Hill area.

The Chairman asked the invited Planning Agents for their views on the District Council’s planning system. The main difficulty identified by the Planning Agents with the planning process was that sometimes planning applications would appear to have passed through existing legislative criteria to the satisfaction of officers, only to be refused by the planning committee.Councillor Colling commented that sometimes officers and members do not agree, but that the Sub-Committee were the people on the ground who often had specific local knowledge. Councillor Mrs Wagland added that the Sub-Committee was not there just to rubber stamp officers recommendations, but was obliged to consider the evidence put before it on the day including the 3 minute presentations and to keep an open mind when considering the officer’s recommendations.

Councillor Jacobs pointed out that decisions for refusal contrary to officer recommendation constituted only a small percentage of decisions made at planning committees. He observed that the term “on balance” was sometimes used by Planning Officers when summing up a planning application which did not fit easily within planning criteria.  The planning case officer was never present at the planning committee, the application was presented by a Principal Planning Officer.

From time to time the planning officer successfully defends at appeal a sub-committee’s decision which was contrary to his or her recommendation because the recommendation was a balanced one or because the evidence presented at the committee meeting or the discussion on the part of the councillors justified the alternate view.

The Chairman pointed out that the public believed Council’s officers were the competent authority in planning matters, where in reality the competent authority on the Council were the members of the Planning Sub Committees as the officers had no right of decision at a Planning Sub Committee.

Councillor Bassett commented that new members of the Council received training on planning matters when elected and were then thrust onto a Planning Sub Committee.They try to be independent at the meetings, and are not specialist but have a wider perspective on things. The Councillors interrogate the planning officers as much as possible and like to see agents or the applicants at the meetings.

The Chairman asked the agents if this authority was different from the others and do we do things better or worse? The agents individually said that this was the best authority that they had worked with and that our officers were very approachable, they could contact them easily and they returned phone calls. Other authorities did not do this. The agents felt they could come in and talk to the officers before  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To note the latest financial figures on Planning Services (attached).

The Principal Accountant provided the Panel with the Income and Expenditure for all Planning and Economic Development Services, showing actual outturn figures for 2004-2005 to 2006-2007, and current estimates for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The costs of the new planning computer system and draft Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) planning statistics for 2007-2008 were also included. The CIPFA statistics included were incomplete due to many Local Authorities failing to submit their returns. This affects any attempt at comparison with Epping Forest District Council. The District Council had the second cheapest planning fees on average, the cheapest being Tunbridge Wells Council, although it was acknowledged that the District Council covered a considerable area. It was mentioned that a copy of the regulations relating to changes to planning fees had been received which would come into force from 6 April 2008, and the overall increase in basic fees would be in the order of 23%. It was advised by the Director of Planning and Economic development that the increase could be over inflation, although this needed to be approached with caution.

The government used to set a standard fee for enforcement of building regulations, however the fees were nowadays part of a ring fenced account. The monies had funded IT improvements and land charges contributing as well. Members felt that there were too many consultants being appointed who were ex-Council officers. The Director of Planning and Economic Development informed the Panel that it was proving difficult to find professional surveyors in the market for enforcement of building regulations. The Panel were informed by a member that the public were using Local Authorities for building control work and not outside agencies, as it was felt that they had the knowledge.

Councillor Jacobs commented that a 23% increase in fees had just come in. We should accept we could not balance our books and may as well do what we can by levelling these charges.

The Director of Planning and Economic Development suggested that the Building Control Manager, should be invited to a future meeting of the Panel.

ACTION:

The Director of Planning and Economic Development to bring spreadsheets to the next meeting and amenity groups and local councils to attend as well.

None raised.