Agenda item

Cabinet Member: Councillor Gareth Griffith

To consider the report

The Cabinet Member's monitoring report on the implementation of the new Delegation Scheme for planning applications was submitted.

The Cabinet Member set out the context noting that this was a matter that was live and changing, and the report gave members a picture of what was happening, what had changed and what the procedure was.

Officers elaborated on the content of the report, and then members were invited to ask questions and offer observations.

During the discussion, the following observations were submitted by members:-

·         Concern was expressed regarding the consultation arrangements with the AONB on the grounds that it would be more democratic if the observations on planning applications came from the Llŷn AONB Advisory Joint Committee, rather than the AONB Officer.  It was further noted that there had been some conflict between officers and joint committee members regarding several contentious applications. 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the number of planning applications determined via the delegation scheme, compared with the number submitted to the Planning Committee e.g. in October 2019, a 107 applications were determined by officers compared to 3 by the committee. It was understood that the local member had the right to call in any application to a committee, but often the member missed the application and therefore missed an opportunity to call it in.  It was also noted, due to Gwynedd's geography, that the type of applications received here were different to those received in populated areas such as Cardiff, Swansea and the south Wales valleys. There was also mention that presenting fewer application to the committee reduced the members' workload, however, the members were paid for undertaking this work.

·         It was noted that what was important was that applications that come before the Planning Committee were applications that merited discussion, and the reduction in the number of meetings and applications that came before the committee was welcomed. 

·         It was noted that it was more difficult by now for the members to see the weekly list of planning applications due to IT changes, and it was emphasised that members had to be aware of the applications to hand in order to be pro-active and to convey the local feeling on those applications.

·         It was noted that members should also receive a list of the applications determined via the delegation procedure.

·         It was noted that Anglesey had made a profit of 5.9% last year on planning fees (a net expenditure of £767,000 and income of £812,000), however, Gwynedd had made a loss of 51.9% (net expenditure of £1.097,000 and income of £528,000).

·         It was emphasised that any application to vary a condition/conditions on a planning permission granted by the Planning Committee should be referred back to the committee automatically, especially if the variation may be contentious.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the inability of the public and Members to contact planning officers over the telephone.

In response to the above observations and questions from members, it was noted:- 

·         In terms of the AONB, that a service level agreement was in place.   The AONB Officer was professional and independent from the planning service, as all other consultees.  Planning officers had a duty to assess what was required in accordance with legislation, and therefore they did this in the context of the observations received from the AONB Officer. There was no statutory duty to consult with the AONB, however, this was done because of the importance of the work relationship between both units.  It was deemed that there was no necessity to consult with the Joint Committee, although they were welcome to submit observations on applications, and it was considered that the duty to protect the AONB was undertaken by the planning officers and the AONB Officer.

·         The current delegation scheme derived from a scrutiny investigation made on behalf of this committee, and it also stemmed from this committee's recommendation to the Cabinet Member to modify the delegation scheme.   At the time, it was agreed that too many planning applications were submitted to the Planning Committee and the impact of modifying the delegation scheme was to ensure that only the applications that truly needed the committee's determination were submitted.  The relationship of every member with the Planning Service was extremely important in terms of planning applications, and each member had the right to refer a planning application to committee, whatever the nature of the application.  This change had brought this Council to a similar situation as several other authorities, with approximately 6% of the applications determined by the Planning Committee every year.  It was further noted that it was risky to look at statistics for a short period of committee meetings and to consider what decisions had been made, and it was important to look at the figures over a period of a year.    For example, it was noted that possibly the exact determinations to refuse or approve the three applications submitted to the committee in October last year, had not gone out for another two months for various reasons.  It was further noted that it was recognised that a major development in Gwynedd was very different to a major development in Cardiff for example, and this is why the scrutiny investigation looked at examples of delegation schemes in areas similar to Gwynedd.  Statistics indicated that approximately 94% of the applications of those authorities were determined by the delegation scheme, the changes as a result of the new delegation scheme in Gwynedd took this Council to the same place as planning authorities that were similar in character to Gwynedd.   It was also noted that the comment regarding the workload of members was accepted, however, a higher number of fairly small in nature applications had influenced the number of Planning Committee meetings and the duration of those meetings.

·         The Planning Service had been through a particularly challenging period transferring to a new IT system whilst the day to day work had to continue.   It was acknowledged that a few problems had arisen, however, the service was confident that the new system would benefit residents, members and the service in the long term.   It was confirmed that the weekly list of applications was still available for members and there was no intention to change this.  From next week on, it was proposed to send a link to members to remind them that the new list of applications had been published, and it was also noted that the service would organise training for anyone who had difficulty to find the lists.  

·         The total planning fees for the year were totally dependent on the types of applications received, as some types of applications e.g. applications for supermarkets and substantial housing developments could bring in much higher fees than others.   Therefore, comparing the fees of different authorities was not a comparison of the performance of one against the other.

·         It was considered that the best way forward with applications to vary a condition/conditions on a planning permission granted by the Planning Committee would be to deal with each case as they arose.   The weekly list and consultation came before the members and clearly stated that there was a variation in condition.   In addition, what was considered contentious by officers could be different to what was considered contentious in the application's local area, therefore, officers were very dependent on the local member to act as a barometer for local feelings.  Also, there was responsibility on the local member to jointly discuss the way forward with the officer.

·         That the comment regarding difficulties contacting planning officers was accepted and discussions were under way to see what could be done to improve the system. 

·         The weekly list of delegated decisions was already available on the website.

·         The AONB Officer and internal and other statutory consultees gave a professional opinion in terms of their own professional technical requirements.    They did not make an assessment against planning policies, this was the role of the planning officers.   Therefore, an objection to an application from a consultee did not mean that there was an objection on planning grounds.

A member noted that he had not been consulted on a planning application as a local member in the National Park area.  A member of the committee noted, who was also a member of the National Park Authority, that he would raise this matter on his behalf.

A member noted that he had difficulty in finding the exact location of the AONB on a detailed map.  He noted that the AONB Officer had not been consulted on a recent planning application at Bwlch Bridin, that abutted the AONB, and he was disappointed that there was no comment by the officer on an application that would affect the majority of Porthdinllaen bay.

RESOLVED to recommend:

(a)                To continue to implement the statutory consultation procedure and use the new letter templates for consultations and to monitor the situation with the new back office system and review as required.

(b)                To continue to consult with the AONB Unit as per the current arrangement.

(c)                To continue to provide a programme of relevant training on a regular basis.

(ch)      To reduce the number of Planning Committees from 15 per year to 12 per year and to monitor how this works over a one-year period and for this to be operational in the next financial year.