Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Katy Boughey and Eric Bosshard; Councillors Nicholas Bennett J.P. and Tony Owen attended as their alternates respectively.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2011 be confirmed and signed as a true record.

To hear questions received in writing by the Legal, Democratic and Customer Services Department by 5pm on Wednesday 2 February 2011 and to respond.

No questions had been received.

The Chairman introduced Ben Linscott, Assistant Director of Planning at The Planning Inspectorate who gave a presentation on the work undertaken by the Inspectorate and how that work impacted on Bromley. 

Mr Linscott had been employed by the Inspectorate since 1996, and for the past five years had worked in a managerial capacity where his role involved administering the S.78 appeals service.  He had also been heavily involved with changes to the appeals service.  Mr Linscott was responsible for overseeing groups of Inspectors, managing their casework and the areas in which they worked.

Members were informed that a particular challenge for both local authorities and the Inspectorate was the rapid change of policies.  The Inspectorate strived to ensure that Inspectors were aware of all changes.

Mr Linscott outlined the principles and procedures to which the Inspectorate had adhered since the service began.  The majority of appeals were made by written representations but could also be made by holding an inquiry or a hearing.  25,000 appeals were received each year.  The principles of openness, fairness and impartiality govern all public decision-making by the Inspectorate.  Inspectors need to be clear that the right evidence has been submitted to enable them to reach an informed decision.

Many Inspectors were also planners but this was not a prerequisite for conducting appeals.  The law does not require Inspectors to have expertise in the field of planning but they should be capable of making an informed judgement.

200 cases per year were challenged through the High Court where judgement on an appeal was thought to be incorrect.

A thorough review of the appeal process was undertaken 4-5 years ago resulting in a more proportionate process where each category of appeal followed its own procedure.  The review also resulted in improved customer focus and better use of resources.  Many leaflets and guidance documents on the appeals service were now available to the public via an online planning portal.

Mr Linscott reported that no complaints against decisions had been received since the new procedures had been adopted.

The Advisory Panel on Standards (APOS) which previously measured Inspectors' performance and reported to Ministers was now defunct.

A charging system for appeals was introduced by the 2008 Planning Act but was never acted upon.  The Government proposed to implement a charging scheme and a consultation document would be issued early in 2011.  The charging scheme would apply to S.78 planning appeals and advertisements but would not apply to enforcement.

As a result of the changes to appeal procedures, no further material can be accepted by the Inspectorate once a Committee hearing has taken place.  Only the required documents and case documents (as put previously to Committee) would be accepted.  With regard to the Householder Appeal Service (HAS), one main issue of concern was the disadvantage officers felt when their recommendation had not been accepted.  To ensure that the Inspector understands the reason for refusal, it should be explained clearly in the minute of the meeting as this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Pending receipt of advice from Counsel, this report was withdrawn from the agenda.

At a meeting held on 23 November 2011, the Development Control Committee agreed that consultation be undertaken on the proposed revision of local requirement lists (Minute 60, page 38) .  Local lists enabled officers to assess particular planning applications properly and to invalidate those which were not accompanied by the relevant material stipulated on the list.

The current report contained comments received during consultation with statutory consultees, residents associations, agents and other relevant bodies.  The local information requirements were set out in a matrix attached to the report.

The Chief Planner informed Members that since the report had been published, further requirements had been established.  A revised version of the matrix was circulated to Members and is attached hereto as Appendix 1.

With reference to the requirements for marketing evidence, Councillor John Ince stated that applicants often claim that a proposal had been marketed for years but had little evidence to support such a claim.  The Chief Planner responded that the requirements of the list would ensure that this did not happen in future.

Referring to the requirements for Lighting Assessment, Councillor Simon Fawthrop indicated a desire for the reduction in night lighting and light pollution.  The Chief Planner stated that light pollution was a subject to be considered. However the matrix outlined specific documents required; it did not deal with policies.

Councillor Tony Owen commented that there was a need for submitted drawings to be clear and accurate and that this should be alluded to within the Section Drawings and Levels category.  Councillor Reg Adams agreed and stated that references to dimensions should also be included.  The Chief Planner stated that the onus was on applicants to submit good plans and that the Local Authority should recognise when a bad drawing had been received.  There was no requirement for written dimensions to be submitted.  The Matrix was not exhaustive; it existed to 'flag up' those requirements which were absent in the past.

Members were reminded that the matrix was now before Committee for adoption, having previously been considered by the Development Control Committee at a meeting held on 23 November 2010.  If further changes were to be made, the document would need to go through the whole consultation process again.

RESOLVED that the local information requirements set out in the revised matrix be adopted.

Members’ views were requested on the draft consultation document and charging schedule issued by the Mayor of London as an initial step to setting up a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy, under powers set out in Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.  Money raised would go towards London's share of the Crossrail funding package agreed with Government.  London Boroughs were asked to respond with their views by 1^st March 2011. 

The report was initially considered by Members of the Executive at a meeting held on 2 February 2011.  Members had made a provisional decision but requested an extension of time to allow for full and meaningful discussions.  A copy of the Minute was circulated at the meeting. 

Paragraph 3.2 of the report set out three zones in which London boroughs had been placed, together with the rate payable for each zone. 

Although in principle, the Chairman was in favour of Crossrail, she was concerned that charges to Boroughs should be proportionate to the level of benefit gained by each.  As Bromley was least likely to benefit from Crossrail, members were surprised to note that it had been banded in zone 2 with a levy of £35 per square metre whereas Bexley (which would benefit more from Crossrail as it would reach its Borough boundary) had been banded in Zone 3 at £20 per square metre.

Councillor Charles Joel was against the proposed levy and alluded to the consortium set up when the Channel Tunnel was developed. Councillor Joel suggested that the Crossrail development should follow the same route.

Councillor Russell Mellor was bemused by the levying of charges for Crossrail as he was led to understand that funds were already in place.  Councillor Mellor suggested that the Mayor's reasons for the charges be sought.

Councillor Nicholas Bennett J.P. stated that the proposal amounted to extra taxes on developments within the Borough.  Councillor William Harmer agreed, commenting that development should be encouraged not deterred.

Councillor Nicholas Bennett J.P. also commented that Crossrail would not bring any benefits to Bromley and could, in fact, take business away from the Borough. 

A map of the Crossrail route was circulated to Members (attached as Appendix 2) and it was noted that Crossrail did not reach South London at all.

It was estimated that a total sum of £46m could be collected by 2026.

The Chief Planner explained that banding was based on house price values within each zone and used as the basis for measuring a fair charge. 

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the Council write to the Mayor of London highlighting the disproportionate charge levied to boroughs, against the projected benefits of Crossrail to each.  The zonal banding structure should be revised so that it properly reflects the benefits to be gained by the London Boroughs.  The Mayor’s attention should be drawn to the Fares Fair Judgement 1982;

2)  it be noted that the introduction of CIL would take benefits away from Bromley

3)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.