To receive a report from the Development Management Lead Officer.

The Chairman welcomed Andy Booth, Development Management Lead and Councillor Tom Ashton, Portfolio Holder for Planning to the Meeting.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning expressed gratitude after being invited back to the Committee.  He advised Members that on some occasions, the decisions on imposing planning conditions had not always been effective and these instances highlighted the need for further scrutiny to ensure that planning conditions were able to be enforced and that action was taken when necessary.

Andy Booth, Development Management Lead presented Members with a report on the review of the use of planning conditions, pages 67 to 74 of the Agenda refer.  Members were informed that pursuant to the findings of the Ombudsman in respect of the particular requirements of a planning condition, a service review of practice and procedure for the use of conditions had been required.  The review had been completed and the Committee was being informed of the findings of the review and actions implemented.

N.B. Councillor Fry, Portfolio Holder for Finance and the Head of Finance (Client) left the Meeting at 10.48am.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

·       A Member stated that the conditions applied to planning approvals were frequently removed on appeal or on subsequent plans.  It was queried if planning conditions had been appropriately applied and why so many had been removed.  In response, the Development Management Lead advised this was due to various reasons and that there was always an opportunity to remove or vary planning conditions due to a change of circumstances.  The National Planning Policy Framework made clear that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and that six tests were to be applied and satisfied, page 67 and 70 of the Agenda refers.

·       A Member sought further reassurance that planning conditions were not being used to enable developers to apply and gain permission with the underlying intention of having them removed at a later date.  In response, the Development Management Lead reiterated that the six tests must be applied and satisfied for each permission. National policy required impacts to be mitigated to make development acceptable, for instance to enable affordable housing. The Portfolio Holder for Planning provided further reassurance that Ward Members were notified of applications to remove conditions and were able to call-in applications of local concern.

·        A Member queried who was responsible for making checks on developers following approved permissions and sought clarification whether the Enforcement Department was part of the Planning Department.  In response, the Development Management Lead referenced 1.7.1 of the report which noted that enforcement powers were discretionary within planning legislation, page 68 of the Agenda refers.  It was further advised that the approach through adopted policy was risk based and that negotiation was always the first stage of the process which could take considerable time.  It was confirmed that Planning and Enforcement operated as two separate teams.

·       A Member expressed dissatisfaction that planning conditions imposed were not enforced and that enforcement had no capacity to follow up. Access to the application aforementioned in the report was requested to provide background knowledge and better understanding of the case.  The Chairman advised that the application number was referenced at 1.1 of the report, page 68 of the Agenda refers.

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Planning expressed his commitment to ensuring that the Council undertook as much enforcement as possible with the resources available to ensure compliance.  The concerns and frustrations of the public were recognised, however it was acknowledged that it was not in the taxpayers’ interest to enforce a breach if it was to gain consent by applying for planning permission. The Portfolio Holder for Planning further advised that it was important to achieve greater collaboration between the enforcement and the planning team to ensure the Council was doing all that was possible. 

·       A Member queried the number of cases each enforcement officer was dealing with at any one time.  In response, the Portfolio Holder for Planning advised that a report was to be provided at a future meeting in conjunction with the Enforcement Service Manager. 

·       A Member expressed dissatisfaction that if no-one was being challenged, there was no need for planning or enforcement. In response, the Portfolio Holder for Planning advised that it was not a simple process. There was tests and assessments that were made to determine if an application was submitted and would be successful to regularise any breaches.  The Development Management Lead further advised that the response to any breach of planning needed to be proportionate.  For example, if there was a material shortage and a proposed extension to a house could not match the exact material, it was considered an application to vary the condition on this occasion was reasonable. The Development Management Lead concluded that there was a sliding scale and a range of different circumstances.  Members were assured that the enforcement team followed a set process, and that planning permission was not automatically granted.

N.B. Councillor Edginton left the Meeting at 11.05am.

·       The Portfolio Holder for Planning assured Members that it was understood why the process was perceived as unfair and advised that it was the way the current system operated to enable developers to have the opportunity to submit a variation. It was further advised that enforcement action could not be taken whilst a planning application had been submitted and all appeals needed to have been exhausted before action could resume.

N.B. Councillor Edginton returned the Meeting at 11.12am.

No further comments or questions were received.

Following which it was,

RESOLVED:

That the report on the review of the use of planning conditions be noted.