PAPER D

Purpose: For Decision

Committee: Development Control Committee

Date: 14 October 2003

Title: Service Plan 2003/04

Proposed Service Improvements – Delegation and Site Inspections

Report of the Head of Planning Services

1. Purpose of Report

1.1. To propose amendments to the scheme of delegation in respect of planning applications.

1.2. To propose amendments to the scheme of delegation in respect of enforcement matters.

1.3. To propose protocols for Development Control Committee site inspections.

2. Background

2.1. Members will recall that the various training events held this year have identified the need to review and update delegation arrangements and to establish protocols for site inspections.

2.2. These service improvements are included in the Planning Service Plan for 2003/04.

3. Report Details

Delegation to officers – Planning Applications

3.1. The present delegation arrangements enable officers to process and determine planning applications and other related submissions without reference to Development Control Committee and were introduced in 2000.

3.2. In the year ending 31 March 2003 2081 applications were dealt with under the delegation procedure. In performance terms the present arrangements are working extremely well. The current delegated rate is in the region of 92% of all submissions. The national BVPI target is 90%.

3.3. The delegation arrangements have allowed Members to concentrate on major and/or controversial planning issues, have made better use of limited resources, have improved processes, and have contributed towards the more speedy processing of applications since 2000.

3.4. The Planning Services Best Value Review, as recently reported to the Economic Development, Planning, Tourism and Leisure Services Select Committee (29 September 2003) has however identified the following concerns for the public, and stakeholders involved in the planning process:

a. There appears to be a lack of clarity in terms of which applications will be delegated to officers, and which will go to Development Control Committee.

b. This concern is compounded because the consultation process does not identify how an application will be determined.

c. The recent introduction of public speaking at Committee has further highlighted the difference between the two procedures.

d. There is a lack of public understanding around the detailed operation of the delegated system, and the checks and balances contained in the process.

3.5. In order to address these issues, revised delegation arrangements are proposed at Appendix A. In summary the proposed revisions are:

a. Identify in an objective way applications which will automatically be determined by Development Control Committee based around application types and associated thresholds.

b. Retain the opportunity for local Members to request an application to be determined at Development Control Committee.

c. Retain the opportunity for planning officers to refer delegated application to Development Control Committee which have become controversial.

3.6. In order to address the particular issue of publicity of the proposed determination of a planning application it is proposed:

a. The weekly list of applications and the press list will indicate whether an application will be determined by either Development Control Committee or officers under the delegated procedures.

b. All neighbour notification on Development Control Committee items will indicate this matter and advise of public speaking rights that will exist at the relevant meeting.

3.7. In the event that these amendments to procedures are acceptable to Development Control Committee Members they will need to be reported to Full Council insofar as they impact on the Council Constitution.

3.8. In the event that Full Council confirms the new arrangements it is proposed to introduce them in due course as the changes to working practices which the Document Imaging Process will introduce are rolled out in the next few months.

Delegation to Officers – Enforcement

3.9. Members will be aware that several enforcement matters are reported to meetings of Development Control Committee. The constitution gives delegated authority to officers to determine whether planning permission is required or not. All other enforcement matters are referred to Development Control Committee.

3.10. Given the safeguards contained in the recently approved Enforcement Policy, and the need to speed up procedures to allow compliance with the timetables set out in this policy, a proposed scheme of delegation to officers on enforcement is set out at Appendix B.

3.11. In effect a sliding scale of delegation is proposed. The serving of Planning Contravention Notices and Breach of Condition Notices would be fully delegated. The serving of Enforcement Notices and other such documents would require consultation with the Chairman of Development Control Committee and the appropriate ward Member. Stop Notices, because of their potential financial implications on the Council, would be reported to Development Control Committee, except in cases where the offence was so serious and urgent as to require either immediate action or injunction proceedings.

3.12. As with the proposed changes on planning applications, these proposed changes would need to be reported to Full Council.

Protocol – Development Control Committee requests for Committee Site Inspections

3.13. A proposed protocol on this matter is proposed at Appendix C. Whilst site inspection can play a valuable role in determining applications they should only be requested in particular circumstances. Paragraph 6 of this proposed protocol sets out the types of proposals that frequently lend themselves to site inspections.

Protocol – Organisation of Development Control Committee Site Inspections

3.14. Appendix D sets out proposed procedures for Development Control Committee site inspections. In the quasi-judicial development control system it is considered vitally important that any site inspection is undertaken within the same context as the organisation of the Development Control Committee meeting itself. Several of the proposed notes in the protocol (6, 7, 8) highlight that a site inspection is a private inspection by Committee Members. Other notes (3, 5, 10) indicate that detailed matters to be investigated on site need to be considered in the context of UDP policies and all other material considerations appropriate to the application.

4. Financial Implications

4.1. The proposals set out in this report are primarily of a procedural nature. Insofar as they should not significantly alter the current proportion of delegation and Committee applications, or the number of Committee site inspections they are financially neutral.

5. Options

5.1. To accept the proposed amendments (and refer to Full Council where appropriate).

5.2. To accept some of the proposed amendments.

5.3. Not to accept any of the proposed amendments.

5.4. Given that the Service Plan 2003/04 identifies these service improvements Members are recommended to follow the option at 5.1 above.

6. Human Rights

6.1. The introduction of these proposed amendments in themselves will have no direct implications on the Human Rights Act.

6.2. Individual planning applications and enforcement items will continue to be assessed against the various Articles in the Act.

7. Recommendations

7.1. To agree to the proposed amendments to the Scheme of Delegation (Planning Applications) as set out at Appendix A and to refer the matter to Full Council.

7.2. In the event that Full Council agree to the proposed amendments to introduce the revised arrangements in due course in the context of wider changes to working practice that will follow the introduction of the Document Imaging Project.

7.3. To agree to the Scheme of Delegation (Enforcement) as set out at Appendix B and to refer the matter to Full Council

7.4. To approve the protocols for Development Control Committee site inspections (Appendices C and D) and to introduce them with immediate effect.

Andrew Ashcroft

Head of Planning Services