Cabinet Member: Councillor Gareth Griffith
To consider the
report
Minutes:
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.
Supporting documents: