Minutes:
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. He added that by giving an EOT for 16 weeks n applicant is stopping their clock on the planning guarantee. NH stated that if it certain that the application is acceptable as submitted and officers are not able to get a decision within 8 weeks because it may need to go to committee, then that is why an EOT would be requested and if agents choose not to agree to that then that is fair enough.
LR asked whether that stance is also going to be applied to condition of discharge applications too. NH explained that the planning guarantee does not cover condition discharges and with regards to planning discharge applications they are supposed to be determined within the appropriate timescales because otherwise you can apply for deemed discharge consent. Officers have a discretion over whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of a timely resolution of a condition discharge application topic area being resolved.
CC asked whether the Technical Officers have discretion about what amendments have to be recirculated to the consultee cohort. NH stated that if an application is received and a case officer asks for some revision then in most cases that revision will have to go out for public consultation as it is different to what the neighbours have seen before and if the changes are so small then one would question whether it was needed in the first place, and there would be a approach whether or not it was appropriate not to undertake a further consultation. He added that broadly speaking you would only undertake a consultation with those bodies that are relevant to that particular change.
DB stated that he is led to believe that officers are currently experiencing issues with statutory consultees not providing any responses and he asked how this issue fits with the new administrative arrangements being introduced.
NH explained that the instruction to officers is that they need to make the judgement as to whether or not they think the missing consultee response is going to be significant to the determination of the application. He added that the officer will make attempts to contact the consultee however it may mean that a judgement call needs to be made in order to decide whether the decision us delayed or take a decision regardless.
DB stated that there have been a couple of instances where he has been led to believe that an officer recommendation is imminent and then there have been instances where a statutory consultee has not been contacted and the officer has then had to go out to undertake that missed consultation. He asked whether that would be down to the officer to make a judgement call as to whether the response from the omitted consultation maybe forthcoming and maybe significant in the determination. NH stated that he would expect such situations to be rare and he explained that there is a new ICT system which is due to be implemented imminently which will automatically draw down from the mapping system those organisations which need to be consulted on a planning application and that should reduce the risk of those types of errors from arising.