Minutes:
ML highlighted the changes which are being introduced going forwards.
He explained that there has been a change with regards to the Scheme of Delegation which was agreed at Full Council on Monday.
· The trigger regarding 6 letters is now for individual properties rather than individuals.
· The six letters need to be received during the consultation period for the application.
· Any householder applications recommended for refusal will no longer be reviewed by the Charman of the Planning Committee.
ML explained that as a result of the changes it is hoped that the planning process will be far quicker and reduce some of the workload and pressure on officers in order for time to be spent on live applications. It is hoped that as a result of these changes the speed in providing decisions on planning applications will be improved and will reduce the number of extensions of time requests and the ability to facilitate the planning committee to prioritise appropriate applications. He added that it is also hoped that there will not be the requirement to have as many additional planning committees as there will be quicker decisions made through the planning process.ML added that the changes will effect the back office processes to try to ensure that the 8 week target is met.
ML explained that the pre application offer and associated fees are currently being reviewed as the fees charged are very low and as a result a benchmarking exercise is being undertaken using officers experience to try and look at a more accurate cost to the authority. He added that work is being undertaken with regards to reviewing what we offer to make it more varied and to consider what neighbouring authorities also provide. ML explained that it hoped that agents and developers will have a more consistent approach and with regards to viability there will be no reference to the piece of viability work which was undertaken in December 2019 due to the length of time that has passed and the way that planning has evolved in the last 5 years, including the price of houses, the rise in building costs.
SJ stated asked when the changes to the scheme of delegation come into force.ML explained that a pragmatic approach has been adopted and therefore it has been agreed that any applications which have already gone out to consultation will be considered under the existing process.
JM asked whether any consideration is being given to dealing with late responses from consultees who are stalling applications, and he questioned whether when considering viability currently is another piece of work being undertaken to replace the HJH report. ML explained that with regards to the statutory consultees it is hoped that by expediting the process by not having to take schemes to committee and freeing up officer time, it is hoped that they will be able to chase up consultation responses when they are out of time, however many responses are out of officer’s control. ML added that with regards to the points made concerning viability reports as matters change constantly, it will still be a requirement of viability reports needing to be provided to evidence where the issues are on each scheme and on a case by case basis.JM made the point that the starting point when undertaking viability assessments is that consideration has been given to the 20% and 2000 and now it appears that there has been a backtrack to 2014 and 25% and whatever Cambridgeshire education etc want to ask. ML stated that he is sure that there will be issues and constraints and the under provision of NHS contributions, education etc is causing problems at the current time to deliver housing and that is being looked into in order to gain an understanding.
JM stated that where an applicant has commissioned a properly prepared viability assessment in a recognised form it is a material consideration. He added that a fee will be charged to review it and they are not obliged to say yes and if they do not say yes there will no review undertaken and consideration will then be given as to what weight can be applied to the viability assessment. He asked ML whether that is a correct summary and a correct understanding. ML stated that agents and developers are not paying the council to review it, they are paying for an independent party to validate the form.JM made the point that would be ok if the person reviewing the form acted objectively and independently. ML explained that discussions are taking place with regards to a procurement exercise with regards to the delivery of this as it is likely that agents and developers will have to be offered a number of options rather than just one, however the back office process is till to be decided.