Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:

That in the absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Panel, Councillors A Boyce and Mrs P Smith be appointed as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively for the duration of the meeting.

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

The following substitutions were noted:

(a)        Councillor Mrs J Whitehouse for Councillor J Whitehouse;

(b)        Councillor G Waller for Councillor K Chana; and

(c)        Councillor Mrs P Smith for Councillor P Keska.

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

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview and Scrutiny members are asked to 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 Overview and Scrutiny 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 Overview and Scrutiny meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such  a matter.

Pursuant to the Code of Member Conduct and the Planning Protocol, the Director of Planning and Economic Development, Mr J Preston, declared a non pecuniary interest in the following item of the agenda by virtue of currently removing a car port on the side of his property. Although he opted to stay in the meeting, he advised that the Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development would present the report on this item.

• CLG Consultation – Extending Permitted Development Rights for Homeowners and Businesses.

To agree the notes of the last meeting of the Panel held on 7 November 2012 (attached).

RESOLVED:

That the notes of the last meeting of the Panel held on 7 November 2012 be agreed.

The Terms of Reference are attached.

The Panel’s Terms of Reference were noted.

The Work Programme is attached.

The Work Programme was noted. It was suggested that an extra meeting of the Panel may be required to discuss the changes from S106s to Community Infrastructure Levies. It was also felt that discussion was needed on liaison between Planning and Economic Development and Essex County Council Highways.

To receive a demonstration of webcasting from the Senior Democratic Services Officer.

The Panel received a webcasting demonstration from the Senior Democratic Services Officer.

He advised the members of how to view the webcast and associated agenda points, captions and slides. The webcasting officers had contact with Public-i during an actual broadcast. It was Public-i who broadcast the webcast to the wider web, meaning there was a 20 second delay when watching the broadcast live.

Webcasting was not currently available on Apple iPad users and portable devices, this was being investigated. Recently links had been placed on more prominently on the “Your Council” section of the Council’s website. The Panel were also advised that webcasts were increasing being used as evidence in complaints and planning appeals.

The webcasts were recorded onto disc and were provided to the public on request, but were also available on the website for up to 6 months after the meeting.

Members thanked and congratulated the Senior Democratic Services Officer for his work with webcasting, they also said that the Cabinet should be encouraged to support this resource in the future.

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

The Panel received a report from the Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development (Development Control) regarding a Communities and Local Government (CLG) Consultation – Extending Permitted Development Rights for Homeowners and Businesses.

The Coalition Government planned making a number of changes to the planning regime to reduce bureaucracy, speed up processes, reduce costs and contribute to driving growth as part of its concerted economic stimulation package. One of these was a proposed change to the permitted development regime, these were a deregulatory tool set by the Government and used a general impacts based approach to grant automatic planning permission for development that complied with limitations and conditions set out in the Town and Country Planning Order 1995. The proposals were announced with the publication in November 2012 of a technical consultation “Extending Permitted Development Rights for Homeowners and Businesses.” A consultation period was running until 24 December 2012 on these proposals.

Reason for Changes

The proposed changes were thought to provide the following benefits:

(a)        The large majority of homeowner applications were uncontroversial and almost 90 per cent were approved, in almost all cases at officer level. By cutting out this application process it would reduce costs and delays.

(b)        Up to 40,000 families a year wishing to build straightforward home extensions would benefit and each family would save up to £2,500 in planning and professional fees.

(c)        Extending further permitted development rights would promote growth, allowing homeowners and businesses to meet their aspirations for improvement.

(d)        It would bring extra work for local construction companies and small traders.

(e)        The telecommunication changes would contribute towards the Government’s ambition for the UK to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe in 2015.

Suggested Response

The most controversial change here, undoubtedly, was the proposed doubling in the length of a single storey rear extension that could be built rearwards from the back of the original wall of the house, without the need for planning permission. Planning applications currently determined by local authorities, carefully taking account of the views of neighbours and neighbourhoods would be determined by parliamentary Order without any consultation or negotiations. There was real concern that neighbourly relations were going to become strained where the previous opportunity to comment on a proposal in advance of its implementation were no longer available.

There was a fee for planning applications, which had just increased to £172.00 for a rear extension on a house. This change meant that the vast majority of single storey rear extension would not require planning permission and therefore there would be a loss of income. This may be partly offset by an increase in certificate of lawful developments, but the income on these applications was half that of a planning application.

Question 1     Do you agree that in non-protected areas the maximum depth for single-storey rear extensions should be increased to 8m for detached houses, and 6m for any other type of house?

Response:     No

Comments

Most planning applications rarely proposed rear extensions at 6-8  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

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

The Panel received a report from the Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development regarding Extending the Range of Pre-Planning Application Charging.

The Local Government Act 2003 allowed local authorities to charge customers for holding discussions prior to the submission of planning applications.

Originally all services offered in connection with development control were free to users. Planning fees were introduced in the 1980s for those making planning applications with the intention of them paying a contribution to the costs of providing the service. Fee generating applications made up only half the overall costs of development control. The fees were compulsory and set nationally. They had just increased by 15%, few issues of non payment had arisen. The Council’s fee income was estimated to be £550,000 in this financial year.

The charging for pre-application discussions could produce a further income stream for the Council. Pre-application discussions had always been encouraged by the Council and a charging scheme could have the benefit of dissuading some ill conceived proposals, highlighting the cost of officer time in the process and re-couping some of this cost.

It was advised that most Essex authorities and London boroughs Redbridge, Havering and Waltham Forest made changes.

Officers currently had a scheme of charging on major planning applications and used the DCLG definition of major as being proposals for 10 houses or more, or a residential scheme on a site of 0.5 hectares or more, or 1,000 square metres of commercial floorspace or a commercial scheme on a site of 1 hectare or more. A flat charge of £1,500 was charged. This was higher than many of the other Essex authorities, but for 2012-13, the income we had received on pre-application advice on major applications was at £19,500. Admittedly, this was higher than previous years and the proposed expansion to include other categories would only a contribution to the full costs and so followed the spirit of the existing charging regime but was considered proportionate to the fee that had to be submitted ultimately to accompany the application.

Consultation with agents who regularly submitted applications both in this district and elsewhere had previously emphasised that charging for smaller schemes, particularly for householder applications, gave rise to considerable ill feeling and a significant disinclination to seek pre-application advice at all. Hence, the previous decision that it applied to major schemes only. However, despite officer’s initial reservations, charging pre-application advice on major applications had worked reasonably well over the last 5 years, bringing in a total of about £60.000.

Not all inquiries would attract a fee, it was also suggested that free advice would continue to be provided only for advice prior to an application for:

(a)        Alterations or extensions to single dwellings and other householder applications;

(b)        Works to a listed building or works of demolition within a Conservation Area;

(c)        Works to trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders or located on Conservation Areas;

(d)        Advice to establish whether planning permission was required; and

(e)        Advice to Parish Councils,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

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

The Panel received a report from the Planning and Economic Development Business Manager, regarding the Panel’s Work Programme.

Five documents were submitted that would from elements of the Business Plan 2013-14, they were:

(a)        Section Three:            Directorate Summary Section 3 (B) Business Review;

(b)        Appendix One – Business and Environmental Review Analysis Business Plan 2013-14;

(c)        3(d) Electronic Records Document Management System;

(d)        Draft Appendix Two – Electronic Records Management Progress Plan 2013-14; and

(e)        Section Four: Corporate Objectives and Priorities.

The Business Manager advised that the directorate was trying to create a post from existing resources to manage electronic systems and records, as the trainee ICT technical officer post was coming to an end in May 2013. He gave an example of how the technical development in the use of crystal reporting had helped to implement better business procedures that supported faster ways of working as well as improving efforts to reduce paper usage.

RESOLVED:

That the following updated sections of the Panel’s Work Programme be noted:

(1)        Draft Business Review – Section 3b, Business Plan 2013-14.

(2)        Proposed Business and Environmental Review – Appendix One Business Plan 2013-14.

(3)        Outline Section 3(d) Electronic Records Document Management System Business Plan 2013-14 and the Electronic Records Management Progress Plan Appendix Two Business Plan 2013-14.

(4)        Draft Directorate Value for Money Statement – Section 4(c) Business Plan 2013-14.

(Director of Planning and Economic Development) To consider the attached notes of the last meeting of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Area and District Development Control Committee held on 11 September 2012.

The notes of the Development Control Chairmen and Vice Chairmen’s Meeting from 11 September 2012 were submitted to the Panel for consideration.

(a)        Item 10 Any Other Business (3) Councillor Mrs P Smith requested that if there was a change in the Planning Officer presenting at an Area Planning Sub-Committee, the Chairman should be notified beforehand.

(b)        Probity in Planning Reports

It had been suggested that the Probity in Planning reports should be discussed at the end of the Area Plans Sub-Committees, and treated as a training session. However it was advised that recently, particularly Area Plans East Su-Committee, had discussed at least ten reports, meaning the meetings had extended beyond 10.00p.m. It was often the case that following the Development Control items members sometimes were inclined to note the report rather than discuss it. The Director of Planning and Economic Development suggested that the Portfolio Holder for Planning and himself could meet and undertake a lessons learnt session.

RESOLVED:

That the notes from the Development Control Chairmen and Vice Chairmen’s Meeting from 11 September 2012 be noted.

The Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development advised that Government was concerned about non-planning matters being raised in planning sub-committees.

The next programmed meeting of the Panel will be held on Tuesday 16 April 2013 at 7.30p.m. in Committee Room 1.

The next scheduled meeting of the Panel would be on Tuesday 16 April 2013 at 7.30p.m. in Committee Room 1.