Agenda No.

3

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

TUESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2009, AT 10.00 A.M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION DOCUMENT RELATING TO STREAMLINING INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS - RESPONSE

Report of the Director of Environment and Commercial Services

Author: Brian Owen Tel: 01992 556255

1. Purpose of Report

1.1  To report on the consultation from Department of Communities and Local Government on streamlining information requirements for planning applications and seek agreement on a response.

2 Summary

2.1 The Killian Pretty Review recommended that there should be a more proportionate approach to information requirements making the information required “clearer, simpler and more proportionate, removing unnecessary requirements, particularly for small scale householder and minor development"

2.2  The proposals under review would also seek to respond to the current economic downturn by reducing administrative burdens on applicants and reducing the amount of information that local planning authorities (LPAs) need to review when determining a planning application.

2.3  The consultation reply takes the form of answers to specific questions asked of Local Planning Authorities within the consultation document and these questions are addressed in turn within this report. (using the text from the consultation document and reproduced here in bold italics):-


Do you agree with the proposed policy principles? If not, what amendments to these principles do you suggest?

1.  The following new policy is proposed:

2.  “It will be for the local planning authority to specify exactly what information is required for each application type to ensure that the applicant supplies the correct supporting information. It is important to ensure that local lists are clear, reasonable and proportionate.

3.  In preparing or reviewing their local lists, local planning authorities should take into account the following national principles and criteria:

Table A: Principles and criteria for local list preparation
Principle / Key Considerations
Necessity / All local list requirements should be based on statutory requirements, national, regional or adopted local policy.
Precision / It should be clear where (geographically) the information requirement arises
It should be clear precisely what types of development require the provision of supporting information.
Proportionality / Where possible, the list should identify size thresholds below which the information is not required.
Where possible, a graduated approach should be taken to the information required (e.g. dependent on the scale or sensitivity of the proposal).
Fitness for purpose / It should be clear what information is required to satisfy the requirement – with a strong emphasis on encouraging a proportionate approach and brevity.
Assistance / For each element of the list it should be clear where further information or answers to queries can be obtained.

2.4 The proposal would be likely to lead to a very complex validation checklist. The existing validation checklist is 18 pages long. Producing a validation checklist to deal with all types of application would be likely to increase the length of the document significantly.

2.5 Also the requirement to identify policy requirements could prove difficult. In respect of the county council's own service development the validation checklist would have to relate all 10 District and Borough Plans and policies.

2.6 Therefore the validation checklists would become much more lengthy and complex being difficult to administer and confusing for applicants to interpret. A review of validation checklists with the principles may be appropriate but it is probably better to ensure that in the use of validation checklist the proposed criteria are used. Also when LPA's do reject any application, in writing to explain why an application is rejected they apply the principles in their reply to give good guidance to applicants in helping them produce good quality information.

Do you consider that revising local lists in this manner will encourage a more proportionate approach to information requests by LPAs?

2.7 Yes, but a more proportionate approach could be achieved by using the principles together with the existing lists without producing a further and more complex list.

Do you consider that implementation by December 2010 is a realistic timescale? If not, what would be more appropriate?

2.8 No, limitations on LPAs budget, the consultation process proposed together with the need to timetable reports to committees and the need to consult and involve the government Office will be likely to lead to a timescale of greater than 1 year.

Do you agree that requirements for particular map scales, block plans, floor plans, site sections, floor and site levels, and roof plans should be set out by the local planning authority, using a proportionate approach?

2.9 Yes, plans needed for different types of development ranging from a landfill site or sand and gravel quarry to a new lift shaft at a school are very different and flexibility is key.

Do you agree with the proposal to summarise major applications?

2.10 Yes, but there would need to be a recommended format so that those items of interest to the general public and consultees are included in the summary. Summaries should be a factual record of the proposal and carry an analysis of proposals. Otherwise summaries could misrepresent proposals.

Should the proposals for a summary document apply only to applications defined as ‘major development’? If not, for what types of schemes might a summary document be useful?

2.11 No, it should apply to all development but a proportionate approach to the length and complexity can reflect in the summary produced.

Do you agree that this approach is appropriate? Are there any other measures, apart from the consideration of validation as part of wider performance measurement, that should be taken to ensure improved local lists are developed and used?

2.12 The proposal is that LPAs should involve the government Office in drafting new lists. Provided a timely and prompt response is kept by the Government Office this could work. However the consultation process is likely to bring forward relevant issues without this requirement. Performance management of validation process as suggested is not likely to lead to a good measure of the quality of the planning process. The need to produce a list should be the only requirement.

Do you consider that the proposals described in this section and Appendix 3 will effectively support a more proportionate approach to information requirements and validation? If not, what would you propose instead/as well?

2.13 The proposal would be likely to introduce an unnecessary level of complexity to the process of validating planning applications. A more proportionate process could be reached by LPAs adopting the principles in applying their existing validation checklists. This is a process which has already been changed a number of times since its introduction and further changes are not necessary.

Do you agree with the changes to DAS proposed here and in Appendix 2?

2.14 It is proposed to change the regime of design and access statements. Currently design and access statements must be submitted by law and the form of design and access statements are also prescribed in law. LPAs adopt a cautious approach in looking at statements because of this legislative requirement. This legislative requirement has not led to production of good quality design and access statements for all developments though. Sometimes design and access statements are produced prior to the submission of a planning application and outside of the design process. The design and access statement then becomes a paper based exercise and does not improve the quality of development proposals. The proposal is to move to a policy based approach. This would mean greater flexibility in changing and adapting design and access statements to genuinely provide better quality development can be made as practice improves. Also design and access statements should require demonstration of how the principles have played an active part in the evolution of the design of the project.

Do you agree with the range of application types and designated areas that would be exempted?

2.15 In addition it is proposed to remove S73 applications (variation of planning conditions), householder development in National Parks, AONBs etc (not relevant to the County Council as LPA) and minor non-residential development outside of world heritage sites, conservation areas or involving listed building consent. This idea would provide a proportionate approach and should be supported.

Do you agree that the issue of context should be discussed in relation to the scheme as a whole (rather than specifically related to the sub-headings of amount, layout, scale, landscaping or appearance)?

2.16 The context of the development should be considered in relation to the whole of the development and not separate elements giving a more holistic approach to the design and access statement and by this the application of design to the development proposal.

Are there other exemptions/changes that we should also consider?

2.17 Design and Access statement are often produced prior to submission of planning applications. As such they are only a source of information, however the ideal is that the principles involved should be used to apply to the design of the development to help drive up the standard and quality of the submitted proposals. Therefore a requirement to demonstrate how the principles have been used in the actual design of the development proposal could help to ensure real changes are brought to developments rather than just the documentation submitted with planning applications.

Do you have any comments on the impact assessment, in particular on the assumptions made and the anticipated impact on small businesses?

The County Council does not tend to deal with planning applications from small businesses, except for small scale waste disposal projects. It is the consideration of the application that is more likely to affect these businesses that any of the issues under cover of the consultation document.

3. Conclusion

The Committee In considering the consultation proposals Is Invited to authorise the Director of Environment and Commercial Services to respond to the consultation as set out within the report.

5