Agenda item

The Strategic Lead Planning provided clarification and response to questions from Members in relation to the service plan for the service for 2022-23.

The service plan for the coming year included:

·        Drafting policies to deliver better quality homes and more affordable housing, particularly social housing;

·        Ensuring site allocations within the new local plan are robust and clear about the infrastructure that must be delivered to support timely delivery;

·        Collecting and spending Community Infrastructure Levy monies to deliver the infrastructure to support new development;

·        Working with Neighbourhood Planning Groups to deliver Neighbourhood Plans which reflect the aspirations of the community;

·        Completing work on and adopting a new Playing Pitch Strategy;

·        Engaging with communities on planning applications and policies through neighbourhood planning and implementation of the Neighbourhood Planning Communications Strategy;

·        Continuing to work to reduce carbon emissions involved in the operation of the service and drafting policies requiring zero carbon development and measures to minimise embedded carbon;

·        Through the new Local Plan, requiring the provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure as part of new developments;

·        Working to minimise the impact of developments on bio-diversity, trees and migration, and delivering all necessary habitats and flood mitigation measures;

·        Develop planning policy to encourage new highly skilled and well paid employment across the district;

·        Through the new Local Plan, supporting the diversification of town centres to enable them to thrive;

·        Moving forward with planning at Cranbrook and consulting on the main modifications to the development plan;

·        The service had seen a considerable increase in applications, and temporary resources had been brought in to deal with these.  The high demand was likely to continue into the foreseeable future and would need to be planned for in terms of resourcing.  Putting in permanent resources would be cheaper than temporary but would have budget implications for the coming years; however, additional fee income should help to cover the higher expenditure.

Clarification and responses included:

·        A Member asked how the service would improve enforcement, and feedback to Members.  The Service Lead Planning stated that enforcement was key in ensuring unauthorised development was addressed, otherwise it undermined the policy process above it.  The service had three Enforcement Officers doing good work in keeping on top of cases, however enforcement was not a statutory part of the service and was resource-dependent;

·        Some Members expressed concern that ward members could no longer see what enforcement action was taking place on particular sites; this information used to be on the website but was not any longer.  The Service Lead Planning responded that some site owners complained that publication of enforcement information suggested a presumption of guilt, and he understood the Information Commissioners Office had provided guidance to be taken into account.  He recognised it might be appropriate to review how the information was made available to ward members;

·        A member asked that the wording of the objective regarding enforcement was revisited to make it a ‘SMART’ objective.  The Service Lead Planning stated he would look again at the form of words, but it would be difficult to make it time-bound;

·        Responding to a question about what level of carbon reductions the service hoped to achieve, and how this would be monitored, the Service Lead Planning stated the service’s powers were limited to mitigating the impact of development through ensuring key policies were in place via the new Local Plan to address climate change and the impact on biodiversity and protected habitats;

·        Concern was raised about a disjointed public transport system particularly on the east end of the district going across the border to Dorset. Could the Council have any impact on this?  The Service Lead Planning stated that the Council worked closely with Devon County Council and public transport providers but had limited influence.  The service did seek to ensure that new developments were well serviced by public transport.  He added that in terms Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) spend, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan talked about improvements to the rail services, particularly delivery of passing loops to deliver half-hourly services along the line to Cranbrook, Honiton and Axminster, and they were in ongoing discussions with Network Rail about the Council potentially part-funding the project;

·        A Member asked that an objective be added to the service plan concerning the production of a list of survey requirements for the validation of planning applications. The Member added that they would like to see the validation requirements in relation to bats be set out on the website, together with a report to Strategic Planning Committee within the next three months detailing what the requirements are.  The Service Lead Planning responded that validation requirements as drafted were quite broad and dealt with a broad range of species.  He stated that he would review the validation requirements and add an appropriate objective to the service plan;

·        Concern was expressed that the service did not fully engage with communities over planning applications; it was noted for example that notices were no longer posted on lampposts for minor applications and it had been felt on occasion that democracy was not served.  A Member asked for a review of how the Council engaged with the community on planning applications.  The Service Lead Planning stated he was happy to review if it was felt appropriate but pointed out that:

o   people were able to register online for automatic notifications of planning applications in their area;

o   site notices were still displayed in some circumstances where there were wider implications e.g. on busy routes;

o   there were implications in terms of cost and carbon footprint in printing and displaying notices; and

o   during the pandemic, developers were asked to post the notices on lampposts themselves and send a photograph confirming they had done so, and this had worked well, but was not enforceable;

·        The Service Lead Planning stated that there was a Statement of Community Involvement in place but it was quite light-touch and not specific to various circumstances, and he would be happy to review it and add further detail if Members felt it appropriate; 

·        It was suggested an objective be added to the service plan to develop policies around low carbon and sustainable tourism and visitor accommodation.  The Service Lead Planning responded that he would add this in as an objective, and confirmed it was being worked on already through the new Local Plan;

·        Some Members questioned why there were sites put forward for development in the Local Plan which had only recently been refused due to concerns around habitat or unstable land.  The Service Lead Planning stated it was important through the Local Plan process to consider all sites put forward, and to assess them. Whilst a previous application might have been unacceptable, that did not mean the site itself was unacceptable.  He added that applications would have been assessed in the context of the Local Plan in place at that time but the new Local Plan was being developed which could potentially lead to a different outcome, and it was possible that issues identified could be addressed and overcome;

·        A Member observed that there was nothing in the service plan regarding homes in a state of disrepair; could the service exert pressure to bring these homes up to standard, and could there be compulsory purchase of those not brought up to standard?  The Service Lead Planning stated that the Planning service could serve an Untidy Land Notice for property in a very poor state of repair but otherwise had little power.  Much of the work regarding vacant homes was through Environmental Health and Council Tax and, where there are planning issues, the service worked with those teams to coordinate the response;

·        Some Members noted that town and parish councils had put a lot of effort and money into producing their own Neighbourhood Plans and expressed concern that the Council’s Local Plan would override that work.  The Service Lead Planning acknowledged the potential conflict; the Local Plan took priority in legislation but he recognised the need to respect the content of Neighbourhood Plans and engage in communication over any district-wide issues which conflicted with Neighbourhood Plans.  He remarked that the Neighbourhood Planning Officer was available to provide advice, and a regular newsletter was circulated containing guidance.  He added that town and parish councils might need to review their Neighbourhood Plans in light of the new Local Plan, if they were to continue to hold weight in decision-making.

Recommended to Cabinet by the Overview and Scrutiny Committees that the Service Plan 2022-23 for the Planning service be adopted, subject to:

·        A review of the Council’s enforcement processes and how information about cases is communicated to ward members and the public;

·        A review of the validation information requirements for ecological surveys and assessments;

·        A review of the Statement of Community Involvement and consultations on planning applications to consider making greater use of site notices to publicise planning applications.