A revised approach to planning by Fenland District Council will speed up decision making, remove some of the powers of the planning committee – and its chairman – and ensure officers resume a key role in determining applications. Detailed in a report from head of planning Matthew Leigh and Cllr Dee Laws, the portfolio holder for planning, full council will be asked to approve changes on Monday.
Mr Leigh says that putting too many applications before the committee “puts in place a process which is resource intensive; it is important that decisions are made at the appropriate level using the committee or delegated”.
The report says it is vital the council follows planning policy, both local and national, to ensure consistent decision making.
“This gives developers and the public confidence in the decision-making process,” says the report.
Although there is no requirement for the planning committee to follow the recommendation of the planning officer “they are still bound by the same policies, Government guidance and case law as the planning officers”.
Mr Leigh reminds Fenland council they have previously been at risk of being placed in ‘special measures’ due to poor performance in relation to the time taken to determine the smaller scale planning applications.
The recommendations, if approved, will revise the scheme of delegation and set out when, and if, applications are referred to the planning committee chairman, for the past 5 years Cllr Dave Connor.
The current requirement for the head of planning to consult him on ‘householder’ applications when they are to be refused will be removed.
(A householder application is usually for works or extensions such as loft conversions, dormer windows, swimming pools, walls, or conservatories).
And the rules governing 6 or more “unresolved opinions” (which are used frequently to get an application before the planning committee) will be amended. In future the 6 or more “unresolved opinions” will need to be from different properties and received within the consultation programme.
Presently an application that receives 6 or more unresolved opinions from any address (within the ward or adjoining ward) and at any stage of the lifetime of the planning application is required to go before the planning committee.
This means that if six people write in the day before the 8 week deadline the application cannot be determined, and it is required to go to the next available planning committee.
Turmoil inside Fenland Council over code of conduct planning challenges
“The proposed changes would require for the 6 or more unresolved opinions to come from different addresses,” says the report.
“This is because whilst multiple people at a neighbouring site, for example, may have a very strong opinion this would be one sole planning matter and should be considered as so.
“The ‘number’ of pieces of correspondence should not be a material consideration in the determination of a planning application, this has been found to be the case by the courts.
“6 different addresses raising an opinion with a scheme may evidence that the development has more of a strategic importance than would first appear and reasonably indicates that a scheme should be considered by the planning committee.
“However, this is not the case when the opinions all come from the same property or premises.”
The report adds: “Furthermore, it is considered reasonable to require the opinions to come in within the consultation period rather than at any time through the life of the application.
Councillors defy code of conduct and ombudsman warning to reverse planning decision
“This will enable a timelier decision making process and provide clarity for officers on whether a planning application will need to go before the planning committee to assist in managing workloads and associated pressures.”
Mr Leigh says that on householder applications, between August 1, 2022, and August 2024, the council determined 422 such applications. A review of that period revealed only one application had been presented to the planning committee chairman on a refusal.
“It is therefore considered that the additional workload for the service is not proportionate to the quantum of applications that are presented to the planning committee,” he says.
“It is therefore, recommended that householder planning applications should be removed from this part of the scheme of delegation.”
He also offers a stark reminder that “planning applications must be decided in accordance with planning policy unless material planning considerations outweigh the policy position.
“This ensures that fair and consistent decision-making takes place which is the backbone of the planning system and gives the public faith in its operation.
“A timelier decision making process will improve the experience of the community when engaging with the planning process”.
Mr Leigh concludes that it is “correct for a council to review the adopted scheme of delegation to ensure that it remains up to date and that the correct applications are going before the planning committee whilst balancing the need for timely decisions”.
The outcome will be faster decision making across a range of application and councillors on the planning committee “can focus on developments that potentially have a more significant impact upon the district”.
It will also reduce the pressure placed on the chairman of the planning committee to review recommendations for refusal by reducing the number but also providing an extended period.
And the work pressure on officers will be reduced and “it would be clearer for the public where decisions are made regarding the type of application and also allow the public to know whether an application is to be determined at officer or committee level earlier in the process.
“It is considered the suggested changes would result in a demonstrable improvement to the performance of the local planning authority, ensure that the planning committee deals with the most appropriate planning applications and also reduces the pressure on the council’s staff”.
Mr Leigh’s report emphasises the need for the council to determine applications within a specified timeframe, generally 8 or 13 weeks, “and the Government places great importance on timely decision making”.
He says: “Delegation of planning applications to officers can save significant amounts of time and increase productivity within the planning service. However, it is important to balance the saving against the need for elected members to deal with the key and most complex planning applications.”
Mr Leigh says there has been a “progressive increase” in applications coming before the planning committee – these have doubled in recent years.
Yet Government guidance is that a minimum of 90 per cent of application should be determined at officer level, and across the country he says around 95 per cent of reports are dealt with under delegated powers.
“Alongside the increase in applications being presented to the planning committee, there has been a decrease in the percentage of applications determined at officer level,” says Mr Leigh.
He also says that the Government have indicated that there will be a more detailed investigation into a local planning authority’s performance if deadlines are not met.
“It is suggested that the existing scheme of delegation is amended slightly in an attempt to facilitate a timelier decision making process.,” says Mr Leigh.
At a recent town council meeting in Chatteris, Cllr Connor said that the planning committee had to have specific reasons for going against planning officers’ advice and those reasons must be based on planning considerations.
Responding to criticism of the planning committee (CambsNews has featured many instances of controversial decision making) Cllr Connor said that “what has been published about Fenland planning is really, really unfair”.
