(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)
Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration and Policy informing Cabinet of the recent public consultation regarding Planning Performance Agreements and sought agreement to adopt a Charter for such agreements in the future, to be used in consideration of the most strategic, major planning applications.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
Option 1 – Not to Formally Adopt a Charter:
This would result in the Planning Service continuing with the present, ad-hoc arrangements for pre-application discussions for major, strategic proposals. Officers would continue to informally arrange ‘Development Team’ meetings but this process would not be enshrined in a Charter. It would therefore not direct applicants and developers to keep plans fluid during early stages (to enable them to respond to consultation suggestions) and would not require developers to consider the wider scope of their proposals at an early stage. New arrangements for community and Elected Member involvement at Development Team meetings would not be adopted. Finally, the failure to adopt a PPA Charter means that timescales for determining major planning applications would remain at 13 and 16 weeks, rather than agreed, application-specific timescales. This would result in a continuation of the present system whereby many major planning applications are determined after their national performance indicator target.
Option 2 – To Formally Adopt a Charter:
An adopted Charter would introduce a consistent procedure for the consideration and negotiation of major, strategic planning applications. Aside from formalising the pre-application process, it would provide greater opportunity for statutory consultees and community groups to be involved earlier in the development process. It would give greater certainty to all parties regarding the timescale of submission and determination of planning applications.
Officer Preferred Option (and comments)
Option 2 is the preferred option for the reasons set out. It is considered that formal ratification of the Charter should be via the Council’s Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee. This is because the Charter is not a planning policy document, but simply a protocol for consideration of planning proposals that will ultimately be determined by the Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee.
Councillor Bryning proposed, seconded by Councillor Blamire:-
“(1) That Cabinet resolve to adopt a Charter for Planning Performance Agreements.
(2) That Cabinet determine that the ratification of the Charter should be the subject of formal approval from the Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee.
(3) That the Head of Financial Services be given delegated authority to update the General Fund Revenue Budget as and when required (outside the normal annual budget process) to gross up additional outsourcing expenditure and associated income for one-off major applications, subject to there being a nil impact on the Council’s resources.
(4) That for strategic major applications, i.e. spanning more than 1 year, individual reports are brought back to Cabinet for approval prior to the General Fund Revenue Budget being updated.”
After receiving advice from officers the proposer and seconder of the original proposal agreed to the following addendum:
‘That the following be added to the end of recommendation (2) : “following consideration by Cabinet of the detailed issues surrounding member involvement as referred to in paragraph 3.8 of the report.”
Councillors then voted:-
Resolved unanimously:
(1) That Cabinet resolve to adopt a Charter for Planning Performance Agreements.
(2) That Cabinet determine that the ratification of the Charter should be the subject of formal approval from the Planning and Highways Regulatory Committee following consideration by Cabinet of the detailed issues surrounding member involvement as referred to in paragraph 3.8 of the report.
.
(3) That the Head of Financial Services be given delegated authority to update the General Fund Revenue Budget as and when required (outside the normal annual budget process) to gross up additional outsourcing expenditure and associated income for one-off major applications, subject to there being a nil impact on the council’s resources.
(4) That for strategic major applications, i.e. spanning more than 1 year, individual reports are brought back to Cabinet for approval prior to the General Fund Revenue Budget being updated.
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Head of Regeneration and Policy
Head of Financial Services.
Reasons for making the decision:
Planning Performance Agreements will not, by themselves, solve the inherent challenges facing the national planning system and will not be appropriate for all major development proposals. However, if they are adopted for schemes which are complex and most challenging, then they are already acknowledged to have the potential to achieve greater collaboration and transparency between all parties involved in the development process. Formalisation of the process through the Charter, is therefore, considered necessary.