Planning and Development 19 th May 2011. Philippa Lowe Head of Development Services. The Planning System. The Planning System. The Planning System. Decision Making Framework: managing competing uses for space Origins – 1947 Planning Act Actively engage with Communities…..
Head of Development Services
The Cotswold Environment
“Working together to meet the development needs of our customers whilst protecting and enhancing the built and natural environment of the Cotswolds”
What we do……………..
Cases last year:
1675 applications last year;
1933 enquiries pre-app’ enquires;
586 Enforcement Complaints;
1585 Land Charge Searches - responsesCurrently:
25 Major applications awaiting determination, Including Highfield Farm, Tetbury (250 units), North Home Road, Cirencester(103 units) and Siddington Road, Cirencester(60 units);
197 Open Enforcement complaints;
Customer Satisfaction ratings of 86+%;
Fee income + £600K pa.
Plan Checking - building projects
Inspecting building work - compliance
Public - building related enquires
Customer Satisfaction ratings of 90+%
Fee income generation of around £425K pa
Market share of Building Control work 80+%
LABC Regional Building Excellence
Award 2010 Winner
Building, Engineering, Mining or Other Operation. Development - Could be a change of use.
Some development will not require permission.
Permitted by General Permitted Development Management Order or Use Classes Order.
WHAT IS DEVELOPMENT?
Front-Loading Act 1990.
Development Management is:
“End-to-end management of the delivery chain for sustainable development”
Pre – app discussions#
Appraise & Engage#
Layout/density Act 1990.
Impact on neighbouring land/properties
Amenity: daylight, sunlight, privacy
Noise, Smell, Pollution
Conservation/listed building impact
Crime (and fear of)
Health/Health and Safety
Economic & social benefits
Planning history/related decisions
Personal circumstances (rarely)
Viability – economics of provision
Impact/reduction in property values
Land Ownership/right of access
Work already done
Personal views about the applicant
Objection based on discrimination grounds
Loss of private view
Breach of restrictive covenants
The Applicant/ History of applicant
Change from previous scheme
Matters covered by other legislation e.g. Building Regulations, Environmental Health
Level of Local support/opposition
-…….you can support or oppose an application and represent the views of your constituents
-……..doing so will compromised your (impartial) role on the committee
There is therefore an important difference between those Cllrs involved in making a decision and those seeking to influence it.
……..If in doubt get advice from legal: Predisposition, Predetermination, Bias and Code of Conduct.
Chair – Cllr Venetia Crosbie Dawson
Portfolio Holder – Cllr Sue Jepson
Lead Officer: Kevin Field
Legal Officer: Bhavna Patel
Committee Clerk: Derek Chiplin
Team Leader – Development Management
Case Officer/ Specialist Officers e.g. Conservation Officers as required
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Act 1990.Making the Decision
Material Planning Considerations
-why is the proposal acceptable?
-is there any harm?
-is any harm outweighed by the benefits?
-what is it about the proposal/specific part of the proposal that causes harm?
-what is the precise nature of the unacceptable impact?
-what is the policy basis?
Technical Consultee responses
All other views – if material
Look at individual merits/ context
Come to a view in light of officer assessment and recommendation
Approvals - must be: Act 1990.
Reference to relevant development plan policies should be included;
Conditions, with reasons must pass tests of Circular 11/95
Justification should be clearly minuted if different from officer report/recommendation*;
Conditions Circular 11/95 Tests:
Relevant to planning
Relevant to the development
Reasonable in all other respects
Appeals can be made in respect of any condition – costs awarded if not reasonable.Approvals and Conditions
Refusals - must be:
Particular care is needed if intend to over-rule technical advice such as Highways, Environment Agency (if in doubt DON’T!)
Use a common - sense approach –
What is commonly acceptable within residential areas such as degree of overlooking, proximity of dwellings etc?
Relying on local knowledge is acceptable only if based on a firm evidential base – take particular care where there are technical issues (eg highways)
There must be a clear AUDIT TRAIL for the decision
There will be cases when Members consider making a Contrary Decision to the Officer’s recommendation
Members may wish to place more or less weight on some material considerations and the “balancing exercise” means a different outcome
It is an inevitable part of Committee decision-making and in many cases is reasonable and defensible
BUT It is important to take care in order to MINIMISE THE RISKS