Issue - meetings

This report provides Members with an update on technical consultations that have been published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).  These relate to improving transparency and monitoring of building out of schemes and to proposed reforms to Planning committees including their size and which types of application can be considered by those committees.

(Report of Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health)

The report provided an update on the technical consultations that had been published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, relating to improving transparency and monitoring of building out of schemes and to proposed reforms to Planning Committees, including their size and which types of application could be considered by those committees.

It was noted that the response to the “Implementing measures to improve Build Out transparency: Technical consultation”, attached at Annex 1, was submitted under delegated powers of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, due to the timescales involved.  The fact that the Government was considering measures to ensure schemes were commenced and built out in a timely manner was welcomed by Members, although it was recognised that details around potential enforcement powers, in particular the power to decline to determine applications if a developer had failed to build out development authorised by an earlier planning permission at a reasonable rate, were yet to be laid out by the Government.

The proposed draft response to the “Reform of Planning Committees: Technical Consultation” was set out at Annex 2.  Members noted that this consultation proposed reforms to the size of Planning Committees, as well as suggesting that Members on a Planning Committee would be required to have a certified programme of training.  It also considered a potential tiering scheme to determine which types of application would be able to be considered by a Planning Committee, if meeting certain locally set criteria, and which would be delegated to officers. 

While appreciating the careful thought that had been given and efforts made by the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health in drafting the response, Members had a lengthy discussion around the proposed response to a number of the questions in the consultation, and suggested strengthening the answers in respect of Question 2 (highlighting the exception of reserved matter approvals for both major and medium development categories from Tier A category), Question 3 (clarifying that Tonbridge and Malling should be in the ‘smaller Local Planning Authority’ category and therefore medium residential development should fall in Tier B), Question 5 (strengthening the application of exceptional circumstances in line with a mandate to be set by the Government to ensure consistency), Question 9 (highlighting confirmation of Tree Preservation Order should be included in Tier B as per the Council’s existing policy), Question 11 (accepting the application of exceptional circumstances with enforcement decisions being delegated in the main under Tier A), Question 12 (emphasising the objection of Members to the restrictions being considered by the Government in respect of setting a maximum number for planning committee members for national consistency and removing the reference of the size of planning committee being an acknowledged issue from the response) and Question 15 (expanding the response to capture the different views of Members on mandatory training).

In order to meet the deadline for submitting a response to  ...  view the full decision text for item 35

(Decision Notice D250084MEM)

The report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health provided an update on the technical consultations that had been published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, relating to improving transparency and monitoring of building out of schemes and to proposed reforms to Planning Committees, including their size and which types of application could be considered by those committees.

It was noted that the response to the “Implementing measures to improve Build Out transparency: Technical consultation”, attached at Annex 1, was submitted under delegated powers of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, due to the timescales involved.  The fact that the Government was considering measures to ensure schemes were commenced and built out in a timely manner was welcomed by Members, although it was recognised that details around potential enforcement powers, in particular the power to decline to determine applications if a developer had failed to build out development authorised by an earlier planning permission at a reasonable rate, were yet to be laid out by the Government.

The proposed draft response to the “Reform of Planning Committees: Technical Consultation” was set out at Annex 2.  Members noted that this consultation proposed reforms to the size of Planning Committees, as well as suggesting that Members on a Planning Committee would be required to have a certified programme of training.  It also considered a potential tiering scheme to determine which types of application would be able to be considered by a Planning Committee, if meeting certain locally set criteria, and which would be delegated to officers. 

While appreciating the careful thought that had been given and efforts made by the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health in drafting the response, Members had a lengthy discussion around the proposed response to a number of the questions in the consultation, and suggested strengthening the answers in respect of Question 2 (highlighting the exception of reserved matter approvals for both major and medium development categories from Tier A category), Question 3 (clarifying that Tonbridge and Malling should be in the ‘smaller Local Planning Authority’ category and therefore medium residential development should fall in Tier B), Question 5 (strengthening the application of exceptional circumstances in line with a mandate to be set by the Government to ensure consistency), Question 9 (highlighting confirmation of Tree Preservation Order should be included in Tier B as per the Council’s existing policy), Question 11 (accepting the application of exceptional circumstances with enforcement decisions being delegated in the main under Tier A), Question 12 (emphasising the objection of Members to the restrictions being considered by the Government in respect of setting a maximum number for planning committee members for national consistency and removing the reference of the size of planning committee being an acknowledged issue from the response) and Question 15 (expanding the response to capture the different views of Members on mandatory training).

In order to meet the deadline for submitting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35