Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development in relation to a Session 1 inquiry to review the method by which planning applications are publicised and community involvement takes place.

Referring to Minute 53 of the meeting held on 13^th October 2009, the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report in relation to  Session 1 of the Board's inquiry to review the method by which planning applications were publicised and community involvement takes place.

The purpose of the report was to cover background information in relation to the following specific issues:-

·  the statutory requirements for consultation and notification within the planning system, including appeals

·  types of comments that can be considered

·  Statement of Community Involvement.

·  current methods used for publicising applications in Leeds

·  proposed changes to consultation and notification methods highlighted in the Killian Pretty review, a Government review conducted in 2008 which looked at the planning system identifying ways it could be improved further by reducing bureaucracy and making the system more responsive and customer focused

Appended to the report were copies of the following documents for the information/comment of the meeting:-

a)  Terms of reference – Inquiry to review the method by which planning applications are publicised and community involvement takes place

b)  Report of the Chief Planning Officer – Inquiry to review the method by which planning applications are publicised and community involvement takes place

c)  Leaflet on a Protocol for pre-application discussions with local communities and Ward members

d)  Leaflet on Planning pre-application advice charter

The following representatives were in attendance and responded to Members’ queries and comments:-

Councillor C Campbell, Chair of Plans Panel (West)

Phil Crabtree, Chief Planning Officer, City Development

Martin Sellens, Head of Planning Services, City Development

Helen Cerroti, Development Project Manager, City Development

In summary, specific reference was made to the following issues:-

·  clarification as to whether Plans Panels had canvassed developers/members of the public to ascertain whether or not they were receiving a good or bad service

(The Development Project Manager responded and informed the meeting that surveys had been undertaken in 2007 and 2008 with a positive feedback received on both occasions)

·  Planning applications online and the fact that 30% of constituents do not have access to a computer

·  clarification of the role, responsibilities, reporting arrangements and location of Community Planners who work in two Area Committees, and whether or not they have been successful since their implementation

(The Head of Planning Services responded and outlined the current arrangements. The Chair of Plans Panel (West) informed the meeting that within the North West (Inner) area, the introduction of a Community Planner had made a significant difference and improvement in relation to monitoring planning policy)

·  the Public Access System which allowed planning applications to be searched online and details of the new service where details of applications in a pre-specified area are proactively emailed each week to people who register for the alerting system. Members indicated that they would like this facility on a ward by ward basis, to assist them with their caseloads.

(The Development Project Manager responded and outlined the current protocol behind the Public Access system. The Board noted and welcomed that officers would investigate the possibility of introducing this service on a ward by ward basis)

·  details of the project which was underway to encourage community and interest groups to sign up for the Planning Alert System.

·  the decision by Communities and Local Government (CLG) that the statutory requirement to publish certain planning applications in newspapers will remain

·  consultation arrangements and the possibility of advertising in local free weekly papers

(The Chief Planning Officer and the Head of Planning Services responded and outlined the current consultation arrangements, which included Metro on major schemes. The Board noted that Planning Services were currently reviewing the current protocol for newspaper advertising)

·  a view expressed that those people who purchased the Yorkshire Post/Yorkshire Evening Post were more likely to have a ‘quality interest’ in the planning process, unlike readers of the Council Newspaper

·  clarification of the principles behind lamp post advertising

(The Chief Planning Officer and the Head of Planning Services responded and outlined the current protocol in relation to lamp post advertising and site notices. The Board specifically noted that cable ties were used for site notices which was a vast improvement on the previous system)

·  clarification of the protocol in relation to how the location of sites were described on site notices, particularly where roads cross boundaries of areas

  (The Head of Planning Services responded and outlined the current

  protocol. The Board specifically noted that the department checked both 

  the applicant’s description and site notices and try to be specific in an

  attempt to avoid any errors)

·  clarification if Planning Services inspected maps when determining which residents to notify on particular applications

(The Head of Planning Services responded and confirmed that map based analysis was used when determining who to notify)

·  the language used in some of the appeal notification letters and the need to make these easy to understand

·  the length of Plans Panel meetings and whether they were working better

(The Chair of Plans Panel (West) and the Chief Planning Officer responded and outlined the progress that had been made. It was noted that shorter meetings were now the norm and that considerable changes had been introduced, overseen by a Joint Member Officer Working Group. Plans Panel meetings were very important as the showcase for the Planning Service in the city)

·  the importance of training of Members who sit on Panels, but also for Ward Members on planning related subjects

·  the need for witnesses/organisations to be identified  for Session 2 of the Board’s Inquiry

(The Development Project Manager responded and stated that, subject to further discussions with the Board’s Principal Scrutiny Adviser, the following witnesses/organisations had been identified to give evidence:-

Charles Johnson – Kirkstall Forge Developer

Councillor G Hall – Parish Town Councillor

Councillor J Thornton – Parish Town Councillor

Two residents - from the Community Engagement perspective

A Planning Aid representative)

RESOLVED –

a)  That the content of the report and appendices be noted.

b)  That the Board’s Principal Scrutiny Advisor be requested to include the above specific issues and recommendations within its final report.

c)  That, subject to further discussions between the Chief Planning Officer and the Board’s Principal Scrutiny Adviser, the following witnesses and organisations be identified to assist the Board with their deliberations in relation to Session 2 of the inquiry due to be considered at the next meeting on 9^th February 2010:-

·  Charles Johnson – Kirkstall Forge Developer

·  Councillor G Hall – Parish Town Councillor

·  Councillor J Thornton – Parish Town Councillor

·  Two residents - from the Community Engagement perspective

·  A Planning Aid representative

(Councillor C Beverley left meeting at 10.25am during discussions of this item)