Agenda item

6.1

The Committee considered a report of the Policy and Improvement Officer, relating to the call-in of the Individual Cabinet Member Decision on the Statement of Community Involvement.  The report attached a report of the Executive Director, Place, containing details of the proposed changes to the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), referring specifically to how the Council consulted on planning applications and planning policy.  The decision had been made by the Leader of the Council on 28^th July 2014, and the report also attached the call-in form, to which Councillor Ian Auckland was the lead signatory.

6.2

In attendance for this item were Councillor Leigh Bramall, Cabinet Member for Business, Skills and Development, Graham Withers, Business Manager, Development Management, and Laurie Platt, Planning Officer, Regeneration and Development Services.

6.3

Councillor Leigh Bramall introduced the report, indicating that the proposals comprised a package of measures to ensure that the Planning Service was self-sustainable and less susceptible to further budget cuts.

6.4

Graham Withers referred to the proposed changes to the SCI, indicating that the last review of the Statement had been undertaken in 2006 and it had been identified that there was a need to improve a number of the Planning Service’s working practices, particularly with regard to how the Service engaged on planning applications.  Mr Withers referred specifically to the lack of responses received to the numerous letters sent to residents and businesses, inviting comments on planning applications.  He referred to some of the proposed changes, which included reducing the number of letters sent to residential properties, redesigning site notices in order to make the key content easier to read and ceasing to issue voluntary site notices.  He concluded by stating that he believed that the quality of engagement with the public would not be adversely affected. 

6.5

Councillor Ian Auckland stated that whilst he welcomed some of the improvements, and believed that Sheffield already went beyond the statutory requirements in terms of how it engaged with the public in connection with planning applications, he raised some concerns, specifically with regard to the plans to promote online services on the basis that a number of people did not have internet access.  He also considered that pre-application consultation should be encouraged at every opportunity on the basis that it could resolve a number of issues prior to applications being submitted, therefore saving time and money.

6.6

Graham Withers responded by stating that he agreed with the principle of pre-application consultation, indicating that, although it was not a statutory process, albeit one that the Government encouraged, there would still be the necessary resources available to enable the Planning Service to provide such a service.  Councillor Bramall added that whilst he accepted that the forecasted savings were not significant, if similar savings were replicated across the Council, they would add up.

6.7

Members of the Committee raised questions and the following responses were provided:-

·             Whilst officers encouraged the practice of residents speaking to their neighbours prior to submitting an application in order to address any concerns, there would still be a requirement on the Council to notify the neighbours, and invite any comments from them.

·             Information on pre-application consultation was not included in the SCI as it was a separate service provided for applicants, and not covered by the SCI. Councillor Bramall agreed to give consideration to the possibility of publishing pre-application advice given as part of any subsequent planning application, but was mindful that this might deter investment in the City, as developers need space to discuss options before finalising their proposals.

·             The Planning Service sent information by email, where possible, and when they obtained email addresses, all future correspondence would be sent using this method, rather than by post.

·             Officers would decide on which applications they deemed to be more controversial, which would result in more letters being sent out to residents and businesses, and notices posted, in the surrounding area. Appropriate development types were listed in the Code of Practice. This list has been extended following consultation responses and would be refreshed if necessary.

·             It would not be possible to transfer the costs of distributing notification letters to residents and businesses to the applicants as there was no legal way of doing this.  Also, the fees in terms of applications for planning permission were set nationally, therefore could not be changed by the Council.

·             It would not be possible for officers to personally deliver notification letters when they visited areas to put up statutory notices as this would be inefficient and the Service had to follow its Code of Practice consistently in terms of notifications.

·             Councillor Bramall agreed to consider where there was any justification for posting larger site notices, but noted that officers had adopted the suggestion of using coloured notices for amended schemes and had received favourable feedback on the improved design proposal.

6.8

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)      notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the comments now made and the responses to the questions raised; and

(b)      agrees to take no action in relation to the called-in decision, but consider whether issues arising from the call-in need to be added to its Work Programme 2014/15.

(NOTE: Prior to the passing of the above resolved, an alternative resolution was moved by Councillor Ian Auckland and seconded by Councillor Martin Smith, as follows:-

“That this Committee requests that the decision be deferred until the Committee has considered relevant issues and made recommendations to the Executive.”

The votes on the alternative resolution were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

For the Resolution (4)

-

Councillors Ian Auckland, Robert Murphy, Joe Otten and Martin Smith

Against the Resolution (5)

-

Councillors Steve Jones, Pat Midgley, Helen Mirfin-Boukouris, Steve Wilson and Paul Wood

Abstained (1)

-

Councillor Cate McDonald.)