Agenda item

Further to Minute No. 43, 9^th October 2007, and Minute No. 53, 6^th November 2007, to receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer.

Further to Minute No 43, 9^th October 2007, and Minute No 53, 6^th November 2007, the Chief Planning Officer submitted a progress report on the implementation of the Action Plan arising from the 2007 review of Plan Panels performance.

Phil Crabtree, Chief Planning Officer, and Helen Cerroti, City Development Department, attended the meeting and responded to Members’ queries and comments.  In brief summary, the main points of discussion were:-

• The Chief Planning Officer highlighted the main points contained in the report.  Two further meetings of the Joint Member-Officer Working Group were scheduled, after which proposals would be submitted to the Plans Panels and go out for public consultation.  OSC would also be kept updated on progress;
• Agenda review – the proposals for the timing of agenda items was welcomed, even if this proposal was no more refined than ‘before’ or ‘after’ the break.  It was also suggested that the order of the agenda items should reflect the degree of public interest in the matter, with ‘high profile’ items being dealt with first to prevent the public having to wait around before those items were considered;
• Public speaking – The proposed changes to the protocol on public participation at Plans Panel meetings, and the development of information leaflets, were noted;
• Meeting venues – The suitability of Committee Rooms 6 and 7 for Plans Panel meetings was discussed.  Apart from the alleged technical issues referred to in the report, the size and configuration of the rooms presented problems when large numbers of people attended meetings, and perhaps alternative venues, such as the Council Chamber, should be considered where there was prior knowledge of a high level of public interest.  The timing of items might help to ease occasional overcrowding issues. From OSC’s point of view, the rooms were suitable for  purpose, apart from concerns regarding the poor quality of the sound re-production in the public gallery.  It was agreed that Mike Davenport, Head of Facilities, should be given the opportunity to respond to the comments regarding the alleged technical shortcomings;
• Pre-application presentations – The proposals relating to the development of pre-application procedures and a protocol were welcomed;
• Site visits – The proposals to prioritise site visits, and to focus visits on sites where this can add the most value to the process, were noted.  The Chief Planning Officer explained that this did not mean that visits to smaller sites/applications would be precluded, because sometimes a relatively small application could have significant local impact, but requests for site visits needed to be evaluated, and Members requesting site visits would be asked to provide justification on planning grounds for the request.  Plans Panel Members who did not attend a site visit would not be precluded from considering that particular application, as long as they were conversant with all the facts, and obviously from this aspect, attendance at site visits was preferable.  Site visits were proposed to take place on the morning of Plans Panel meeting days, therefore this represented quite a commitment for Members on these days;
• Digital mapping/CGI presentations – In response to comments regarding digital mapping and the development of CGI presentations, to assist Members to better appreciate how a proposed building would look in reality and would relate to/impact upon its immediate environs, it was reported that both areas were being developed.  Members could certainly look forward to having computer access to digital plans in the foreseeable future;
• Number of Plans Panels – In response to a query regarding the existing Plans Panel arrangements/boundaries in Leeds, it was stated that some cities operated with only one Panel, which met several times a month.  This helped to develop expertise amongst the panel of Members trained to sit on that Panel and arguably aided consistency, but perhaps these arrangements lacked the local sensitively of the present Leeds set up.  The importance of having a City Centre Plans Panel in  a place like Leeds was emphasised;
• Materials – The problem of the use of suitable building materials and the sometimes rapid deterioration of the appearance of buildings after construction was referred to.  The Council had scope to specify particular materials, say in the case of Listed Buildings, but in terms of other developments then ‘reasonableness’ had to be taken into account.  Maintenance of buildings, or lack of it, also played a large part in a building’s appearance;
• Affordable housing – The suitability of off-site and on-site affordable housing units was mentioned, and the fact that each case had to be judged on its merits, dependent on factors such as position, site suitability and degree of need;
• Reference was also made to concerns over garden developments and multi-occupation properties, and policies in this regard.

RESOLVED –

(a)  That the report be noted, and the work carried out to date be endorsed;

(b)  That a further progress report be submitted to OSC in six months time;

(c)  That the views of Mike Davenport, Head of Facilities, be sought regarding the comments about the technical aspects of Committee Rooms 6 and 7.