Agenda item

The Planning Agents/ Amenity Group Forum was held on 26 October 2010 and there was a good turn out with some Members of this Panel also in attendance.

Attached as an appendix are the notes of the forum which, if agreed, will then be forwarded on to those who turned up. The Panel may wish to comment on what actions may be taken forwarded to further improve the service to its customers.

The Panel received the minutes from the Planning Agents Amenity Group Forum held on 26 October 2010. Mr N Richardson, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development, informed members that attendance had been good. The meeting had discussed the following:

(a)        Registration and validation of planning applications

It was advised that planning agents could not always gain access to neighbour’s properties for measuring purposes. Therefore they relied on photographs for illustrating the street scene, which may not guarantee accuracy of perspective. Officer response was that this should be labelled as “indicative,” streetscenes had been requested by Town and Parish Councils to help in decision making.

Planning agents were concerned about inconsistency with planning fees. Although fees were currently set by the Government, officers had experienced difficulties in categorizing some types of development. The website could be updated with attention drawn to Government Circular 04/2008, which gave good examples of fee calculating.

Applications had been returned for initial reasons and following rectification had been returned for another reason. Officers advised that sending plans back to agents had been quite common a year ago, important parts, like scale bars had been missing. Agents also commented that too much detail was required to front-load a planning application. The attendees were informed that validation requirements had been toughened as a response from pressure groups.

(b)       Charging for planning applications/advice

This had been operating for the last 5 years with mixed results. It applied to major category applications only, and was £1,500 + VAT. Agents said that since officer responses were virtually a re-issue of planning policy, it was therefore not worth paying. Officers would review the charging and report to Members.

(c)        Implementing planning policy

It was explained that the timetable for production of the Local Development Framework had been delayed by other priorities. Protection of the Green Belt was raised by amenity groups, as 94% of the District Council was Green Belt.

It was questioned whether Landscape Character Appraisals, Village Design Statements and Ward Profiles should be included in the LDF process. It was felt that loss of bungalows in Theydon Bois should be resisted because there was a need there. Local Plan Policy H4A – Dwelling Mix could be used to defend them. Officers stated that the loss of bungalows needed research.

(d)       Impact of development on existing infrastructure

There was a discussion about North Weald Airfield, the question was posed that if the site was re-developed, the infrastructure would not be able to support new development. However the best forum for this discussion was felt to be the North Weald Airfield and Asset Management Committee.

(e)       Impact of development on Green Belt/Open Spaces

There was general agreement that the Green Belt was important in protecting the forest areas. Small developments close by could have a large impact. For example large agricultural houses, and agricultural vehicles that damaged roadside verges. These aspects should be foreseen before granting planning permission. Officers advised that there was a difficulty in balancing the agricultural requirements against ecology and biodiversity issues. There should only be very special circumstances that allowed significant development in the Green Belt.

(f)        Role of Members in planning decision making

Planning agents felt frustrated when officer’s recommendations were overturned at committee. It was suggested that better training was required for members and planners. With regards to the issues which concerned members at committee, the Planning Services Scrutiny Standing Panel was undertaking a project which involved visiting 3 – 4 sites where development had taken place, assessing the planning issues involved and their impacts. It was advised that objectors to planning applications were issued an information pamphlet on speaking at committees.

(g)       Any other business

• The website required a more user-friendly format. A user group was being set up which would advise on making improvements.

• Improved consultation on planning applications in the area would make people more aware of what was on-going in their neighbourhood. It was advised that on request, weekly list of all planning applications received were emailed out.

• It was advised that some planning case officers did not respond to emails, phone calls, even with repeated chasing up. Workload and constant deadline priorities could be a problem. The matter would be raised at the officer team meeting.

• It was felt that the 8 week target was too rigidly enforced. Agents sometimes advised nearer the deadline that plans needed altering and therefore should withdraw the application or have it refused. Officers stated it was the performance by which the development control service was measured by the Cabinet and Epping Forest. It was advised that the Government had announced scrapping of performance targets in respect of speed of decision making within 8/13 weeks parameters at the end of next March.

The attendees were happy with the forum continuing.

RESOLVED:

That the notes from the Planning Agents Amenity Group Forum of 26 October 2010 be noted.