Planning Agents Forum
22nd October 2014
Attendees
Matt Williams (MW)
Oliver Marigold (OM)
Clare Martineau
Jim Paul
Fran Della Valle
Paul Kellett
Michael Williams
Ben Larcombe
Janet Montgomery
Jo Fryer
Josephine De Boynes
Michael Shepherd
Martin Llewellyn
Richard Swann
Cllr Nigel Woollcombe-Adams
Cllr John Crossley
Planning Team Manger, MDC
Principal Planner, MDC
C & JM Consultants
Db+Paul Surveyors
Della Valle Architects Ltd
Paul A Kellett Architect
MJW Architects
Boon Brown Architects
Brimble Lea & Partners
Town & Country Planning Practice Ltd
Carlisle Jessop LLP
Shattock Associates
Llewellyn Harker Architects
Bruges Tozer Architects
Chair of Planning Board, MDC
Vice-Chair Planning Board, MDC
Notes/Actions
NOTES
ACTIONS
Slide 1: Service Improvements
MW/OM provided context for the service review
and explained that the main purpose of the
review was to eliminate unnecessary delays in
the application process, and to make better and
quicker decisions.
None identified.
Slide 2: Quicker Decisions
MW/OM explained that quicker decisions were
now being made since former National Indicator
targets were introduced in May, so that
customers receive timely decisions. MW
explained that the main reasons for such
improvement came down to:



Case officers now focus on the prescribed
period to ensure that timely decisions.
The determination period is extended where
appropriate.
Validation of planning applications is now
MW/OM will continuously review service
delivery to ensure that quicker decisions are not
compromising the quality of decisions (see
measures of quality under Slide 3 below).



performed by technical officers which has
resulted in case officers spending more time
on the evaluation of applications.
The new decision-making process has
resulted in fewer non-contentious
applications being referred to Councillors.
The new pre-app service offer has helped to
identify issues/problems before an
application is submitted.
The IT system has improved the registration
process although there is limited capacity
within the team to deal with peaks and
periods of staff absence.
It was commonly held that quicker decisions are
being made and that many of the delays
previously experienced have significantly
reduced. The main concern expressed by agents
was that there is now limited scope for
negotiating where problems/issues arise.
MW/OM explained that the Council is now
better fulfilling its legislative duty to make
decisions based on the application submitted
and determining applications within prescribed
periods. They accepted this has reduced scope
for negotiation.
The scope to extend the prescribed period by
agreement was discussed although MW/OM said
that it is not appropriate to do this in every case.
Some agents felt that the approach to extending
the prescribed period was ad-hoc and
inconsistent and MW/OM accepted that this was
likely as it is a new approach. The general rule
for case officers to-date has been to enter into
negotiations and seek an agreement to extend
the determination period where pre-application
advice has been sought and where there is no
objection to the principle of the development.
Concern was expressed about the new decisionmaking process from two agents who were also
Parish Councillors, and the lack of Parish Council
involvement in the review of this process. It was
also suggested that Parish Councils should have
more of a say about whether applications are
delegated or referred to the Planning Board,
instead of it being for the Chair and Vice-Chair.
MW/OM advised that the decision-making
process has not affected the role of Parish
MW/OM will clarify when it is appropriate for
the prescribed period to be extended, and how
long the period should be extended for.
Councils but recognised that their views were
not necessarily being considered by Ward
Councillors in the new process, and this would
be rectified by a change to the process that
Planning Board will be considering in November.
MW strongly felt that Parish Councils should not
decide whether planning applications are
determined under delegated powers or by the
Planning Board and this was confirmed by the
Chair of Planning Board at the Forum.
It was pointed out by an agent that the Council’s
performance on minor applications based on
Government statistics is poor and this was
accepted. However, the steps taken will address
and improve performance on minor applications.
Slide 3: Better Decisions
MW/OM explained that quality decisions were
already being made, as evidenced by:
 The Council’s high success rate at appeal
 The very low number of costs awarded
against the Council at appeal
 The limited number of formal complaints to
the Council which are justified.
 The amount of praise received from
customers.
 All complaints to the Ombudsman being
discontinued at the first stage.
 No judicial reviews
 Quality ‘on-the-ground’
None identified.
This did not provoke any discussion or challenge.
Slide 4: Scope for Further Improvement
MW/OM presented areas they had identified for
further improvement. The following areas were
specifically suggested by agents:
1. Validation of applications. There was a
feeling that the quality of information
submitted is inconsistent, poor submissions
are often accepted and too much
information is required. MW/OM did,
however, point out that the right to
challenge requests for further information
(as explained in the letter requesting further
info) has only been challenged twice and no
The validation requirements are due for review
by July 2015 (every two years) so MW/OM will
seek specific feedback through this review
process in due course.
AGENTS should challenge requests for further
information through the appropriate procedure
if they feel that the information requested is
necessary.
2.
3.
4.
5.
appeals have been lodged.
Timing of feedback from case officers. There
was a general feeling that feedback from
case officers is given too late in the process.
Conditions should be discharged quicker.
The target should be 4, not 8, weeks like
South Somerset. Also, pre-commencement
conditions should not be imposed unless
absolutely necessary.
Decisions on planning applications could be
even quicker. The Isles of Scilly was cited as
an example (28 days).
The information available on the website
needs reviewing. Not all documents are
uploaded, the Councillor responses are not
available on-line and comments posted to
the Council are only summarised on the
website and can only be viewed in full at the
council offices.
MW/OM will review the process of case officers
providing feedback.
The prescribed period for discharging conditions
is 8 weeks but MW/OM will review scope for
quicker decisions. There has already been a
review of standard conditions and precommencement is no longer the default trigger.
MW/OM will review Isle of Scilly’s approach to
decision-making.
The Technical Team is progressing the ability to
publish comments on-line but there is no quickfix as there are significant resource implications.
MDC officers are, however, committed to
improving the information available on the
website for agents.
AGENTS should email
[email protected] to report problems
with documents uploaded (or missing
documents)
Slide 5: Local Plan Update
MW/OM provided an update on the Local Plan.
Some agents expressed concern about proposals
that were going to be approved when there was
a – 5-year supply of housing land but were then
refused when the Council could demonstrate
that it had more than five year supply of housing
land.
MW/OM are aware of some instances but
pointed out that the ‘window’ for assessing
housing proposals against national policy, rather
than local policy, was always going to close at
some stage and it was not possible to say when
this would be. Decisions ultimately had to be
made against the relevant policy at the point of
determination and not submission.
There was a suggestion that officers purposely
delayed determination but this was countered
by the granting of permission for + 1,000
dwelling in 2013/14 against an annual target of
420.
None identified.
Slide 6: New PD Rights
MW/OM gave an overview of the permitted
development rights introduced since May 2013.
MW/OM will provide Class MB guidance for
officers and circulate this to agents.
The focus of discussion was on Class MB
(agriculture to dwellings). It was clear that there
are several aspects of the legislation open to
interpretation, with many differing views, and
only appeal decisions or court cases would
provide clarification. In the meantime, MW/OM
will provide guidance and interpretation for
officers to ensure a consistent approach to the
determination of Class MB prior approvals.
Slide 7: Agents Surgery
MW/OM explained that the surgery was
introduced for a trial period, which has been
continuously extended pending a wider review,
so that agents could get some pre-application
advice before submitting an application.
MW/OM will review the morning duty service
once there is a charge for pre-application advice
so that agents have an opportunity to ask
procedural queries.
Given that the surgery has now been reviewed
and pre-application advice is available to anyone
and for any proposal, the surgery will stop at the
end of December 2014.
It is recognised that the surgery is valued by
some agents but this service has caused
problems because general time-limited advice is
given by the ‘duty’ officer but subsequent
applications have invariably been dealt with by
another officer, and advice given in the surgery
has not been recorded. Furthermore, there is a
proposal to charge for pre-application advice
(see below) and the surgery would be used to
bypass the charging regime and run counter to
the very purpose of charging for the service.
Slide 8: Pre-App Service Charge
The Council needs to realise income
opportunities given the ever-reducing
settlements from Government and there is
scope to charge for pre-application advice,
particularly as the service which advances
private interests in development.
The Council is therefore aiming to levy a charge
for pre-application advice from April 2015. OM
OM will develop a charging regime based on
other local authority approaches and published
guidance, and will then consult as appropriate.
will lead this project and will formally consult on
a charging regime in due course.
It is recognised that the majority of councils now
charge for pre-application advice and the
reasons for introducing a charge were generally
understood and accepted. It was suggested that
agents could pay a set amount annually and then
submit unlimited requests for pre-application
advice, and it was also suggested that any charge
should be proportionate to the proposed
development. Agents agreed that they would
pass on the charge to their client.
It was felt that 28 days was too long to reply to a
request for advice, and that there charges should
be refunded if an officer ‘changed their mind’
once an application had been submitted. Also,
there should be scope to have a meeting and the
advice then given in writing, the VAT implications
will need to be researched and consultee input
will need to be clarified.
Slide 9: Renewable Energy Development
MW/OM provided the context for considering
renewable energy development and highlighted
that the number of turbines and solar farms
being proposed is declining following
government guidance and reduced Government
tariffs for such development.
None identified.
Slide 10: AOB/Future Topics/Next Meeting
It was felt that meetings should be quarterly.
No topics were suggested so future meetings will
be used to raise issues with service delivery and
raise awareness of general planning issues.
The next meeting is 18:00 on Thursday 15th
January in the Council Chamber at MDC’s
offices.