Minutes

Apologies received from: Sasha Bainbridge, Hannah Guy, Emma Nasta, Alex Patrick, David Rowen, Nick Seaton, Tim Slater, Ann Wardle, Martin Williams, Edward Clarke, Hannah Albans, Mark Jones

Present: Lee Bevens, Dino Biagioni, Stephen Buddle, Chris Cooper, Marcel Cooper, Jonathan Cox, Mark Greenwood, Matthew Hall, Nick Harding, Graham Hughes, Peter Humphrey, Shanna Jackson, Simon Jackson, James Kenyon, Councillor Dee Laws, Lee Russell Peter Harley, John Maxey, Jordan Trundle, Chris Walford and George Wilkinson.

The minutes of the meeting of the 4 October 23 were agreed.

NH explained that one of the actions was for the County Council  Ecologist  to present to the forum members with regards to the role out of biodiversity net gain for large sites. It is hoped that they will be present at a meeting going forwards.

Jonathan Cox (JC) from Stantec presented to the Forum.

He explained that Stantec have been commissioned by the CPCA to explore some of the barriers that may or may not be holding back planned housing and employment growth in the CPCA area. He explained that as part of the project there is engagement with local authorities, developers, outside bodies who are responsible for providing water and energy and his remit covers four key subject areas, including transport, energy, water supply quality and flood risk and green and blue infrastructure including BNG and digital connectivity.

JC added that the project is exploring what sites and what areas there is planned housing and employment growth across the CPCA area and looking into the detail with regards to what infrastructure maybe required in order to assist with the delivery and also to get a better understanding of the barriers with regards to delivering the infrastructure.

Members of the Forum made the following comments.   

JM stated that primary driving force for his attendance at the forum was with regards to the proposed traffic improvements around Wisbech which originated in a £10,000,000 fund which was handed to the CPCA to administer and then appeared to be delayed in terms of its availability. He added that the West Norfolk EAP is ongoing at the current time and the Inspector has raised additional questions with regards to when the Broadend Road roundabout is going to become available as it had been stated previously that work was due to commence in 2023 and the land has already been purchased. He asked for an update with regards to who now controls the funding and what is the process for ensuring the project can be delivered.

JC explained that he is working for the CPCA and therefore he does not have the insight into the pots of money and his role at the meeting is to gather information for the particular study. He added that he will feed back the issues raised by JM  and those aspects may be raised when the necessary infrastructure review takes place in order to deliver growth in the region. JC explained that he is not in a position to comment on the funding issues that JM had raised.

NH asked JM whether he was attending the EAP when that particular issue was discussed, and he asked who the question was directed at. JM explained that the EAP recommence on 16 March, and it is for additional questions that Inspectors have posed that will be discussed on 17 March in the context of confirming the East Wisbech allocation and the West Norfolk part remains sound and should stay within the plan. He added that the funding was all lined up and the land has all been purchased and there are other improvements to consider such as Elm Hall roundabout where all the necessary land has been purchased to enable the improvements which unlock an awful lot of the proposed additional development in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

NH explained that the decision has been made to prepare the emerging Local Plan under the existing transitional arrangements and Gareth Martin is working on the new Local Development Scheme which is due to be published in March as it is a government requirement. Gareth Martin is also working on the updated Annual Monitoring Report and a fair chunk of the information is included within the AMR and is underpinning the emerging local plan. NH explained that a discussion with members will take place with regards to the growth strategy identified at the Reg 18 stage in response to the representations that have been received and have commented on the proposed allocation and the alternatives proposed. NH explained that the Regulation 19 stage should be in the Spring of 2025.

NH explained that as of the 1 April there is going to be a  Section 106 monitoring introduced which will be a £500 fee per schedule in agreement where FDC is the relevant body which has obligations to fulfil in that legal agreement.

Members of the Forum asked the following questions.

MC asked that if an applicant put forward a unilateral undertaking would there be a monitoring fee. NH explained that there would be a monitoring fee in the context that we would have to ensure that we spend the money. However, but in terms of what is going to be approved by members that has not been incorporated into our fee and charges system and therefore we will not be raising a monitoring fee in that regard.

MC asked whether the £500 is for each item mentioned in the Section 106 that the council will have to check, and NH confirmed that is correct.

NH stated that currently invalid applications are returned after 13 weeks of issue of the first invalid letter unless otherwise agreed and as of 1 April that is going to be reduced to 4 weeks in order to try to encourage people to submit valid on receipt applications as the current percentage of invalid applications being received remains very high and we are trying to give an incentive to getting applications right first time. He added that if the valid reasons are unable to be addressed within the four-week timescale, then the recommendation is for the application is to be withdrawn and therefore applicants will avoid incurring administration charges which will be introduced from 1 April.

JM stated that at the current time if there is an invalid application and it takes a fortnight to correct, it may then wait another four weeks to be re validated. He asked whether those application will be revalidated virtually on receipt  and NH confirmed that will be the case.

NH referred to the administration fee and advised that as of the 1 April, when an invalid application is returned, there will be a deduction from the planning application fee that has been submitted of the following:

The deduction will be as follows.

£60 on  major applications

£24 on all other application types

This is to cover our administration costs and time spent dealing with the application up until the point of return.

Both of those fees does not actually cover the costs incurred but it was decided not to deduct the full amount straight away.

NH explained that last month the Government changed the Planning guarantee and therefore for non-major applications has been reduced to 16 weeks and if your application has not been determined within 16 weeks from the valid from date then a refund of your application fee would be due. However, if there has been an agreement to an extension of time then that would null and void the ability to be entitled to a refund, even if the planning decision is made after the expiry after the extension of time agreement, you would still not be entitled to a refund.

NH explained that because of the 16 week guarantee arrangement and because of the high number of planning applications which end upgoing before the committee because of our scheme of delegation, between week 3 and 4 officers have been asked to contact agents to ask for an extension of time to week 16 unless the application is certain for approval within 8 weeks.

NH added that he has chosen 16 weeks in order to try and reduce the amount of administration and officers will still endeavour to provide a timely decision as possible irrespective of putting 16 weeks on the extension of time.

 Agents may choose not to agree to a 16 week extension of time and as a group of officers a decision will need to be made with regards to the agents lesser proposal or whether or not officers move forwards with a decision on the application on the basis of it will be decided as submitted. He explained that any amended plans will not be submitted unless there is an extension of time in place as there is a high risk that any amended plans would not be able to be dealt with and move an application to committee should it need to, within 16 weeks.

NH reminded the forum that only one set of amended plans can be accepted on non major applications, however officers have been given discretion to allow a further round of amendments if officers are 99% sure that the application is acceptable.

JM stated that he understands that if there is going to be amended plans then there is the need for an extension of time as 8 weeks is not enough time, however previously there has been significant delay beyond 8 weeks when there are no variations proposed and no request for variations and it is just the administration time the department is taking with its consultees to get to a point of making a decision. He added that in those circumstances, just because the department see it as a slow point to get to a decision because of external consultees he does not think it is fair to say to the applicant that an extension of time is required due to non-adherence to government timescales. JM expressed the opinion that there needs to be a particular circumstance that warrants an EOT before an EOT is requested and for it to pair.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

NH stated that as well as changing the planning guarantee for non-major applications, the Government is also looking to not allowing any extension of time on householder applications and maybe only allowing one extension of time on those planning applications that are not householder applications. NH made the point that the Government may need to consider adjusting the performance requirements of local authorities to take those things into account, such as reduced performance requirement and it is likely to mean more applications being refused.

JM stated that this appears to be pushing agents towards pre apps and getting things agreed before they submit which is fine provided that an effective pre app response can be achieved. NH agreed to provide the internal target for pre apps to JM in writing.JM added that in his experience they are not quick and are not necessarily comprehensive which does not give confidence that the actual application you submit will be acceptable.

NH advised that information is published each month with regards to the number of applications received and those that were valid upon receipt. He explained that going forwards where in the last 12 months, 75% of your applications valid upon receipt the department is pledging to undertake validation checks within 5 days and that 5 days performance by the tech team will be improved upon the closer that we get for those 5 days to be a business-as-usual speed of validation checks for everybody.

He added that if business as usual is that 75% of validation checks are done by us in 5 days and you are a top performing agent then the officers will endeavour to undertake your validation checks in 1 or 2 days. NH explained that the incentive will be kept under review as the business-as-usual validation speed improves.

JM asked whether NH means that it should be applications valid on receipt or without submission of amended or additional information.

NH stated that performance is measured on that basis.

NH explained that a definitive validation checklist is published on the council’s website along with guidance notes.

CC stated that there appears to be something not listed on the validation check which had an impact on one of his applications. NH agreed to look into the issue.

CC asked whether the validation checklist is tweaked to reflect the requirements of Fenland or to national requirements.

NH explained that the is the national list and a local list on the website and CC asked whether the National list contains items which are not on the Fenland List. NC stated that the Fenland list covers both.

NH explained that there is a government consultation on future homes and building standards which contains information with regards to reducing Co2.

NH added that with regards to another building regulations matter for tighter water efficiency, and he explained that it would appear that a new standard which sites below 110 litres per day is going to be introduced. He explained that related to that there has been some engagement by Anglia Water (AW) when it comes to employment related development which is a high consumer of water and AW are looking to introduce some controls in respect of that type of development and they are looking for local authority support for that. NH stated that FDC have not issued any support for it, and we have concerns in respect of that requirement, and we are aware of the pressure that there is with regards to water  resources within our area, notwithstanding the proposed reservoir at Chatteris. NH explained that he cannot provide further detail as the information coming forward from AW is vague and it only talks about industries which are high consumers of water without any indication of what that water consumption threshold is that they are looking to bring under some form of control. Any forthcoming news will be shared.

Biodiversity Net Gain for major sites is now live and agents will now need to submit BNG calculations before and after and the calculations will be vetted by the ecologist. He added that the existing site BNG calculation will always be retrospective if there has been any site clearance.

NH explained that he has highlighted to FDC Property Team along with the officer that manages the cemeteries that the council looks after as well as opens spaces to ascertain whether there is any land which has no development potential or is under used which the council could put forward a location where off-site biodiversity could be provided where it cannot be provided for on existing development sites. He added that for smaller sites within Fenland by bringing them forward it formats where BNG provision is going to be  significant challenge.

Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she would be unhappy with closed cemeteries and graveyards being utilised in this way. She added that in her view there should be no encroachment into the cemetery itself.

JT asked whether the Council are updating their  validation checklist with regards to BNG  and what is going to be required at the validation stage for BNG.NH explained that when he reviewed it last week he could see that the regulations had been updated to facilitate the national requirement for the submission of the BNG calculations and he added that if it is on the national list then FDC will make reference to it on the local list. JT added that KLWN have outlined a new matrix which has been released via the DEFRA website and the statutory tools to compete it plus the requirement of a written statement for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

NH stated that as part of the Government Consultation on permitted development changes there are a number of things which have been included as part of the consultation and one element is larger house extensions where they are asking for opinions on larger roof extensions and there are also items with regards to permitted development changes in respect of air source heat pumps, demolition and replacement dwellings and adding additional floors to dwellings. NH explained that as the information was only released yesterday he has not had the opportunity to digest the information.

NH explained that the Government is looking to change national policy so that Local Authorities give more weight to the benefits of delivery homes on brownfield sites and the local authority should be more flexible when applying planning policies and guidance in relation to internal layouts.

This was covered under an earlier agenda item.

NH stated that there is a current 4 week validation backlog and the information is published on the website with regards to performance concerning the validation backlog.

Majors 91% were determined on time

Minors 67%

Other Applications 85% were determined on time.

He added that with regards to the Governments 24 month rolling performance requirement. There is no issue with regards to major application. Non Majors 71% are close to the designation threshold of 70%

Leavers

Curtis McVeigh will be moving on shortly.

Mark Broad Agency Enforcement Officer has moved on and a replacement is in place.

Brian McPartland and Richard Conroy have left the Authority and were both Agency Staff.

New Starters

Agency

Andrew Dudley – Enforcement

Richard Fitzjohn

Gavin Taylor

Verbal Offers of Employment for Permanent Positions have been made to the Head of Planning, Policy Manager and Officer Post. S106 Officer Post and Assistant Enforcement Officer.

New Head of Planning start date anticipated in three to four months time.

Policy Manger – June

Policy Officer – June

Section 106 Monitoring Officer – March

Assistant Enforcement Officer  - June

It has not been possible to fill the vacancies for the Principal and Senior Development Office, Tree Officer or Senior Enforcement Officer posts.

An Interim Head of Planning will be in place until the permanent position is filled.

JM stated that he has previously asked NH what the views of the officers and the committee were going to be on applications coming in on a draft allocation site and NH had stated that that clearly until adoption the new plan carried limited weight but with the amount of study that had been undertaken on the new sites before they had been accepted for draft allocation and the fact that they had been put forward by the council as their preferred areas it would be unrealistic to publicly oppose them and as such they would be as supportive as they could provide there were no technical reasons for objecting to a site.

NH stated that he does not recall saying that we could support them unequivocally because the council has to be conscious of the fact that there is clear government guidance irrespective of how much weight that can be given to an emerging local plan and as a local plan progresses towards adoption more weight can be applied to it dependent upon the number of outstanding objections to that allocation. He stated that if there is a proposed allocation which has no outstanding objections to it and you have reached Reg 19 stage then you could give weight to the emerging allocation but at the current point in time the council is only at reg 18 stage and we have objections to nearly all of the allocations there are going to be issues with regards to giving weight to those.

JM stated that he posed the question in order to be able to get a better understanding of why from his experience quite a few of the draft allocation sites are at pre app stage receiving responses that are contrary to the draft allocation in terms of  the scale in particular but often the principle of it even being a suitable site when the councils study has identified them as the preferred sites.JM added that the current local plan is out of date   and will not be at Reg 19 stage till 2025 which will mean that adoption will be likely to be in 2026 meaning that the local plan will be 12 years old.JM asked where developers should be directed to if not towards the draft allocations.

NH stated that the pre apps are submitted in respect of the anticipation that an application is going to be made and determined under the terms of the adopted local plan and officers give their advice in that context. In the future the sites and position of those sites that are coming forward for pre app and what the position is for those allocations along with what stage of the new local plan the council is at along with the objections whether they are outstanding or resolved are all factors which need to be considered as things are changing all the time.

JM stated that reality at the current time is that there are very few sites that aren’t actual  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.