Agenda item

To consider a report  of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development regarding the second session of Board’s Inquiry to review the method by which Planning Applications are Publicised and Community Involvement takes place.

Referring to Minute 83 of the meeting held on 12^th January 2010, the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report in relation to  Session 2 of the Board's inquiry to review the method by which planning applications were publicised and community involvement takes place.

 

The purpose of this session was to :-

 

·  receive any information requested from the last session

 

·  consider evidence of examples of good practice in other local planning authorities concerning the publicity and notification given to planning applications and the methods used

 

·  consider some Case Studies involving selected residents groups, developers  and Area Managers suggesting improvements to the current arrangements for publicising and involving people on planning applications , given the constraints identified in paragraph 1.4 of the terms of reference

 

·  identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current arrangements and opportunities and barriers for improvement

 

·  consider how this fits with current corporate consultation policy, processes and arrangements to facilitate more effective community consultation in neighbourhoods with regard to statutory requirements for timescale and scope

 

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

 

In addition to the above documents, a copy of a supplementary report produced by Councillor George Hall, a witness at today’s meeting, was circulated for the information/comment of the Board.

 

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

 

• Phil Crabtree, Chief Planning Officer, City Development
• Martin Sellens, Head of Planning Services, City Development
• Helen Cerroti, Development Project Manager, City Development
• Mr Keith Collridge, Kirkstall resident and involved with the Kirkstall forge redevelopment
• Councillor George Hall,  Barwick-in-Elmet and Scholes Parish Council
• Ms Freda Matthews, resident and Chair of Little Woodhouse Community Association

 

The Chair invited the Chief Planning Officer to report on the following three specific issues which had some relevance to the Board's inquiry:-

 

• new legislation strengthening guidance on  "garden grabbing" and in-appropriate development in gardens
• new regulations covering houses in multiple occupation where planning permission was now required where three people reside (formally six people)
• the recent introduction of a new Online Public Access System which would include all planning applications and comments that were received. The Board was advised that all Members of Council would be given an opportunity to receive practical instruction to use this new system, but much of it was intuitive and could be used straight away

 

  Following this, the Chair then allowed a short presentation from each witness on their personal experiences of the processes and what they regarded as the main advantages and disadvantages of the present system and how it could be approved.

 

  Councillor George Hall

  Councillor Hall referred to his supplementary report and briefly highlighted the main issues relevant to the inquiry and which had been agreed by Barwick-in-Elmet & Scholes Parish Council. Councillor Hall referred to an error on page 2 of his report paragraph 6.1 which should read that 97.1% of planning applications were determined under officer delegated powers not 91.7%. Councillor Hall, in general, was positive of the progress made to date by the department in improving the planning process and of the report of the Chief Planning Officer. In summary, specific reference was made to the following key issues:-

 

  Paragraph 2.0 refers –  the appointment of a Community Planning Officer for the North East Outer Area which had been a great success. The Parish Council strongly support further developments in this regard

  Paragraph 3.0 refers - the complexity of the planning process

  Paragraph 5.0 refers – that they would like to see greater clarity as to the reasons for planning decisions being approved or rejected

  Paragraph 6.1 refers – the view that the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) needed to be more robust in relation to the Parish and Town Council protocol

  Paragraph 6.3 refers – the concerns that in accordance with Paragraph 41 of the Planning Policy Statement1 (PPS1) which states "that Parish Councillors should play a key role in developing full and active community involvement in their area", Parish Councillors were sometimes discouraged when representations they make appear to be given little weight even though they are consistent with the vision of the community 

 

  Keith Collridge

  Mr Collridge reported on his involvement in the community and  with the Kirkstall forge development. He made specific reference to the early establishment of the Kirkstall Forge Liaison Group which promoted good practice and had met regularly since it was established.

 

  The Liaison Group had recently been consulted on the developers proposals to move from one bedroom to more popular three bedroom homes  and was awaiting information on what community service provision was to be provided to meet a more family based community.

 

  He confirmed that the Kirkstall forge developers had in general worked well with the community and had been represented at the Kirkstall festival for a number of years. He reminded Members that Kirkstall  groups were still opposed Section 106 monies being designated to improve Horsforth roundabout as this should come from the Council's highways improvement budget.

 

  In relation to affordable housing, he briefly  referred to the Kirkstall District Centre and British Home Stores site.

 

  In concluding, he informed the meeting that a document entitled ‘Vision for Kirkstall’ had been recently completed and that the University students had been a great help with it’s production. It was intended for this to be included in the Neighbourhood Design Statement for the area and to be accepted as Supplementary Planning Guidance.

 

  Freda Matthews

  Ms Matthews provided the meeting with background information in respect of her role as Chair of Little Woodhouse Community Association. She made reference to the following specific issues:-

 

-  the geography of the Little Woodhouse area which had three Conservation areas and thirteen listed buildings

-  the importance of continuing to include the Little Woodhouse Community Association within the planning process

-  the need to keep the public fully informed of planning applications via lamp posts/street notices and to actively remove out of date notices

-  to welcome the involvement of a Community Planning officer within the North West (Inner) area which had improved the service to the community both in planning and enforcement terms

-  the need to continue to improve communications at all levels between Planning Services and members of the public

-  to welcome the fact that, as good practice, major developers had provided Little Woodhouse Community Association with exhibitions on planning applications

-  to raise their concerns about poor responses to leafleting within the area and to share developers concerns in this regard

-  to inform the meeting of the recent discussions in relation to introducing a Neighbourhood Design Statement for the area and for this document being accepted as Supplementary Planning Guidance

-  to raise the importance of enforcement within the area and to ensure that appropriate enforcement action was implemented against those who were offending

 

The Chair then sought comments from Board Members and those officers in attendance responded to the comments made.

 

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

 

Kirkstall forge development issues

 

• the fact that changing the development from a mainly one bedroom development to principally three bedroom properties, would have an immediate impact on school places and other service provision requirements such as doctors dentists and whether  the developers had taken this into account

(The Head of Planning Services responded  and informed the meeting that there was an outline planning approval in place for Kirkstall Forge with a Section 106 agreement and that the changes being proposed fell within the remit of the outline approval.  There were continuing discussions with the developer in bringing forward detailed applications for the development)

• clarification as to who had the overall responsibility of looking at provisions on local services resulting from  planning decisions

(The Head of Planning Services responded and confirmed that Planning Services took the lead in this area)

• the need for more affordable housing 

(The Head of Planning Services responded and confirmed that affordable housing was a key priority, but within the context of a volatile housing market required a degree of flexibility )

• the provision of a railway station in the development

 

General Issues

• the definition of what was meant by consultation

• clarification of what was not currently available on the Online Public Access System and why some other local authorities were more advanced in this area

(The Chief Planning Officer responded and outlined the latest developments and protocol)

• how to engage more with both the University of Leeds and Leeds Metropolitan University in the planning process

(The Chief Planning Officer responded and confirmed that Planning officers did consult with students through Unipol and other organisations that existed within the University of Leeds and Leeds Metropolitan Universities,  but  more could be done)

• the need to continue to develop ‘Plain English’ wherever possible in all aspects of the planning process

(The Head of Planning Services responded and confirmed that despite the complexity of some of the issues, Planning Services were seeking to ensure that  ‘Plain English’ was used in all its documents)

• how Parish Councils could involve the community more in commenting on planning applications
•  the siting of planning notices and their removal once expired

(The Head of Planning Services responded and acknowledged that it was his staff who were responsible for carrying out both these tasks)

• clarification as to whether Community Planning officers were involved in enforcement issues

(The Head of Planning Services responded and confirmed that the two posts of Community Planning Officers did take up enforcement issues)

• a suggestion that the department introduce a ‘tick box’ approach to show what consultation had been undertaken and the outcome

(The Head of Planning Services responded and agreed to consider this proposal)

 

In concluding, the Chair then invited the three witnesses to sum up and thanked them for their attendance and contribution to the meeting.

 

RESOLVED-

a)  That the contents of the report of the Chief Planning Officer and appendices, together with the supplementary information, be received and noted. 

b)   That the case studies and witness statement be received and noted.

c)   That the inquiry be extended in order to invite the following witnesses 

  unable  to attend today's meeting to the Scrutiny Board on 9th March 

  2010 :-

    -  Councillor Janet Thornton, East Keswick Parish Council

  -  Tony Ray, Planning Consultant

  -  Jacqui Baines, Planning Aid

d)   That relevant issues identified at today's meeting be included in the 

  Board’s final report.

 

(Councillor R Harington arrived at 10.10am during discussions of the above item)

 

(Councillor N Taggart arrived at 11.05am during discussions of the above item)