OFFICERS REPORTS TO
JOINT MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST & WEST)
28 SEPTEMBER 2006
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
BLAKENEY – 20060284 – Conversion of one dwelling into two dwellings and
erection of studio above existing garage and formation of vehicular access for
R and M Curtis
To consider whether to grant planning permission for the conversion of one dwelling
into two dwellings and the erection of a studio above existing garage on land within
the high risk flood zone.
Background
The application has been considered by the Development Control Committee (West)
on four occasions. Following the meeting on 30 March 2006 a decision was deferred
in order for Members to be able to visit the site. The application was reconsidered at
the meeting on 27 April 2006, when the Committee resolved to give the Head of
Planning and Building Control delegated authority to approve the application subject
to:1) No new grounds of objection being received following readvertisement of the
proposal as affecting the setting of a Grade II* Listed Building.
2) No objections being received from English Heritage.
3) No objections being received from the Environment Agency on the flood risk
details.
4) No new objections being received from the Environment Agency in respect of
not proceeding with the sequential test.
5) The imposition of appropriate conditions including the submission of details in
respect of the rebuilding of the wall.
The application was considered again at the meeting on 22 June 2006 as new
grounds of objection were received following the readvertisement. An objection had
also been received from the Environment Agency regarding flood risk and in the light
of the Council’s decision not to proceed with the sequential test and determine the
application in accordance with the Council’s interim policy on flood risk. Following this
meeting Members resolved to defer the decision to allow the applicants to deal with
the issues raised by the Environment Agency and to allow the service of an additional
notice on the owners of the land over which access is required.
At the meeting on 17 August 2006 Officers recommended deferral, pending further
legal advice, to await the comments of the Police and Fire Service and to consult the
Environment Agency on the amended plans.
The decision of the Committee was to refer the application to the Joint Development
Control Committee with a recommendation for delegated authority to approve,
subject to the views of the Legal Services Manager with regard to the Interim Policy
and the need to seek Counsel’s advice and subject to the views of Norfolk
Constabulary and the Fire Service.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
28 September 2006
A copy of the report to West Committee meeting on 17 August 2006 is attached as
Appendix 1.
Key Policy Issues
Flood Risk.
Updates
A response has been received from the Civil Contingencies Manager regarding flood
risk, who has advised that the addition of this one extra dwelling will not represent a
burden that results in extra risk to the existing residents in the area, but who also
advised that the Emergency Services need to be consulted as the District Flood Plan
delegates the responsibility of evacuation to these services.
Following consultation with the Police the response received advises that flood
warnings are issued approximately twelve hours before any expected flooding. The
Police and Community Flood Wardens would strive to ensure that everyone at risk
was informed of the danger and encouraged to leave their homes although there are
no powers to force people to leave. If large scale flooding occurred and residents
were stranded or in danger the Police would have to call on other emergency and
community resources for assistance. Should there be flooding on the scale of that
which occurred in 1953 resources would be fully stretched and planners should
consider this when allowing development within flood risk areas. No comments have
been received from the Fire Service.
Two further letters have been received from the Environment Agency dated 27 July
2006 and 4 August 2006. The first of these refers to a further objection the
Environment Agency would like to add in respect of the proposed development, on
the grounds that off-site flood risk (and therefore the risk posed to third parties) will
be increased as a result of this development. The Environment Agency had received
letters of concern relating to the proposed new vehicular access in the boundary wall
surrounding South Granary and the neighbouring properties. The Environment
Agency considers that the wall affords some flood protection to the residents of the
neighbouring properties. With this in mind the Environment Agency strongly
recommend that all options for locating the access and car parking areas outside the
curtilage of the “flood defence” wall should be fully explored. It is considered that in
terms of flood risk the best option available to the applicant is to locate car parking to
the rear of the application site as this would not involve the creation of an additional
access. The Environment Agency goes on to re-iterate its sustained objection to this
application on the grounds that the sequential test has not been applied to this
application and that it does not support the view of the Local Planning Authority that
the application is covered by Point 4 of the Council’s interim flood risk policy. The
Environment Agency also questions the legality of Point 4 of the Council’s interim
policy. A full copy of this letter is attached in Appendix 1.
The Environment Agency’s second letter dated 4 August 2006 follows consideration
of an additional report received from the agents acting for the applicant on flood risk
dated 7 July 2006. A copy of this report is contained in Appendix 1. The
Environment Agency’s letter confirms it does not consider the submitted information
is satisfactory in addressing the flood risk posed to the site and maintains its
objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds in accordance with
PPG25 and the draft PPS 25. The contents of the letter refer to the following:• The flood warning service and the Environment Agency’s own admission that
any condition demanding subscription to this service is not enforceable.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
28 September 2006
• The Emergency Planning Officer should be consulted.
• Further information is required regarding the frequency of flooding to the
whole application site and not just the dwelling.
• The re-labelling of the previous third bedroom as a dining room and the
kitchen/diner as just a kitchen is not an acceptable design solution. More
should be done through appropriate design to minimise the potential for
current and future occupants to convert non-habitable rooms to habitable.
• As long as a suitably worded and enforceable condition could be imposed on
any approval to prevent residential occupancy of the garage the Environment
Agency would be willing to remove this part of its objection.
The Environment Agency re-iterates its objection to the creation of a vehicular access
in the boundary wall and its sustained objection to the application on the grounds that
the sequential test has not been applied.
The agents acting on behalf of the applicant in respect of flood risk, in their report of
21 August 2006 have attempted to address the further objections raised by the
Environment Agency in the letter of 4 August 2006. Copies of the letter and report are
attached in Appendix 1.
A letter and amended plans have been received from the applicant’s agent
confirming that the applicant wishes to withdraw the proposal to create a vehicular
access in the boundary wall from the application, and that two car parking spaces will
be provided to the rear of the site as indicated on the amended plan.
The Environment Agency has responded to the latest flood risk report from the
agents in its most recent letter dated 5 September 2006 (copy attached in Appendix
1). The Environment Agency has advised that its comments do not overcome the fact
that they have a sustained objection to this application on the grounds that the
sequential test has not been applied. Their recent letter advises that the agents have
shown that the site will be affected by the Highest Astronomic Tides (HAT) which
occurs twice in every year, and as the site is undefended it will be exposed to a
regular regime of flooding which is inevitable. As such, any development which would
increase the occupation capacity of the site presents an unacceptable level of risk. In
addition the Environment Agency has noted that the applicant has reconsidered the
proposal to make alterations to the boundary wall to create an access, and as there
will now be no changes to the existing risk it can remove its objection on these
grounds. However, the Environment Agency is still objecting on flood risk grounds.
The Environment Agency once again urge the Local Planning Authority to apply the
sequential test to this proposed development, as is their duty under PPG25 and the
draft PPS 25, and as supported by the information provided by the planning agents
for this application.
Appraisal
Members will note from the appended Committee Report to the meeting on 17
August 2006 that South Granary is located within the residential policy area (Policy 6)
of Blakeney as designated in the Local Plan, where the principle of creating an
additional dwelling is acceptable.
Members will also note paragraph 15 of the Appraisal section of that report from
which explains the background as to why it is considered that point 4) of the Council’s
agreed interim policy applies. However, the Environment Agency does not agree that
the proposal complies with point 4 of the interim policy and questions the legality of
the interim policy.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
28 September 2006
Therefore, the view of the Council’s Legal Services Manager has been sought as to
whether she would be happy to give advice on the sequential test or whether it would
be necessary to seek Counsel’s opinion. Without this advice, if approved, this
application would be one of a number approved under the interim policy, and if the
Environment Agency were correct in its views, those approvals could be flawed.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST):That this application be referred to a joint meeting of the Development Control
Committees (East and West) with a recommendation for delegated approval
subject to the views of the Legal Services Manager with regard to the interim
Policy and the need to seek Counsel’s advice, and subject to the views of
Norfolk Constabulary and the Fire Service.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL: Deferral, pending further legal advice on the validity of the interim flood risk
policy.
Source: (Jo Medler, Extn 6128 - File Reference: 20060284)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
SHERINGHAM - 20060606 - Conversion and extension of garage/games room
to provide residential dwelling; The Piggeries Weybourne Road for Mr K Lowe
To consider whether to grant planning permission for the conversion of an existing
double garage/games room into a one-and-a-half-storey dwelling, to form a second
dwelling on the site for an agricultural worker.
Background
The application was first considered by the Development Control Committee (West)
on 25 May 2006 when a decision was deferred in order to allow time for the applicant
to commission a report which assesses the functional need together with a financial
test in respect of the proposal. At the meeting on 14 August 2006, notwithstanding
the receipt of the additional information, Officers recommended refusal of the
application on the grounds that there was insufficient justification to warrant an
additional permanent dwelling on the site, within an area designated as countryside
in the North Norfolk Local Plan, and also on the grounds of highway safety.
The decision of the Committee was to refer the application to this Committee with a
recommendation for approval on the ground that a functional need for two dwellings
on the site had been established and also that the proposal would not result in an
intensification in traffic movements to and from the site.
Key Policy Issues
1. Justification for second dwelling on the site.
The site is within the Countryside policy area where Policy 5: The Countryside
would permit development for agricultural purposes providing it accords with
other development plan policies, including Policy 66: Agricultural and Forestry
Workers Dwellings in the Countryside. Policy 66 requires applicants to
demonstrate the need for a permanent dwelling by means of a functional test
which shows that for the enterprise to function properly there is a need for one or
more workers to be readily available at all times, and that if the functional test is
inconclusive possibly a financial test is required.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
28 September 2006
2.
Highway Safety
The County Council has raised a strong objection to the development on the
grounds that the visibility from the access is substandard and would give rise to
conditions detrimental to the safety of highway users.
Appraisal
The proposed dwelling would be occupied by the applicant, who, together with his
father (who occupies the existing bungalow), breeds livestock and poultry on the
land, which has a total area of just under 1.1ha. As outlined in the report to the West
Area Committee on 14 September 2006, attached as Appendix 2, the applicant, in
addition to submitting details of his illness and disabilities, which negates his ability to
drive, cannot satisfactorily undertake the full range of farm duties from his present
home in Sheringham.
The report, prepared by Acorus Rural Property Services and attached as Appendix
2, elaborates on this background information in respect of the existing operations of
the farm together with the reasons for the proposed agricultural dwellings. In terms of
the Core Functional Need the report suggests that a high degree of care and
responsible management is vital to the health and welfare of the livestock. In
particular it highlights the fact that the suckler herd operates on an all year calving
system with calves being both at the farm and on grazing land which requires the
close supervision and attendance of two stockpersons. In addition the report
suggests that at least in their initial stages of development calves require constant
monitoring on a 24 hour basis, which is also applicable in terms of the production of
turkeys and chickens with young requiring close monitoring.
In terms of the Financial Test, attached as exempt Appendix 4, the report suggests
that whilst the net profit available for unpaid labour is relatively modest the unit is
viable and sustainable. However the net profit figure casts doubt that the holding is
capable of providing sufficient profit to sustain two full-time workers.
The report does not, however, conclude that it is essential for two workers to be
resident at all times.
As far as the access is concerned the Highway Authority confirms that due to the lack
of visibility it is not possible to action the required 215m visibility splay in either
direction and as such the proposal if permitted would give rise to an undesirable
increase in vehicular use of an existing substandard access.
It is therefore the view of Officers, that whilst the circumstances of the applicant are
appreciated, there is no substantive case which demonstrates that the farm needs
more than one worker to be available at all times or that an additional dwelling is
required. In addition a second dwelling would give rise to an undesirable increase in
vehicular using the existing substandard access, which would have adverse
implications for highway safety.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST):Approve on the basis that the applicant has successful demonstrated that the
farm needs more than one worker to be available at all times and that the
conversion of the existing double garage/games room to a second dwelling is
acceptable.
In addition a second permanent dwelling on the site is unlikely to generate any
significant increased in traffic movements due to the fact that at the present
time the applicant, due to his disabilities, which negate him from driving, has to
be driven to and from the farm to his home in Sheringham on a daily basis.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
5
28 September 2006
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:Refuse on the grounds that the proposal would result in the creation of an
additional permanent dwelling within an area designated as countryside in the
North Norfolk Local Plan contrary to the objectives of the above policies.
Furthermore, due to the severe lack of visibility, the proposed increase in the
vehicular use of the existing substandard access would give rise to conditions
detrimental to the safety of highway users.
Source: (Gary Linder, Extn 6152 - File Reference: 20060606)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
Consultation Papers – Planning Delivery Grant 2007/08 and Housing and
Planning Delivery Grant
This report seeks Members’ responses to two Government Consultation papers on
the Planning Delivery Grant allocations for 2007/08 and a proposed successor, the
Housing and Planning Delivery Grant
1. Introduction
The Government is carrying out a consultation exercise concerning Planning Delivery
Grant allocations for 2007/08, the final year under the current regime, and on the
proposed new Housing and Planning Delivery Grant which would succeed it from
2008 onwards. A copy of the consultation letter is attached as Appendix 3 to this
report. The letter sets out briefly the background to the exercise and seeks
responses by 17 October 2006.
Members will be aware that the Planning Delivery Grant is currently being rolled out
for the fourth year of a five year programme. This Council has benefited to the tune
of some £1.32 million over four years, of which approximately £1.08 million has been
generated through development control performance, £108,000 from planning
making performance, £45,000 through e-planning and the remainder being a general
allocation. The grant is not ring-fenced, but in common with most authorities has
been retained very largely within the Planning Service and used to fund a wide range
of staff costs, projects and consultancy work, with particular emphasis on the delivery
of the Local Development Framework.
The Council is also one of 35 local authorities who have participated in a national
Study which has set out to evaluate the use of Planning Delivery Grant. The Study
has just been published and the Government has congratulated many planning
departments for making full and effective use of the Planning Delivery Grant. The
funding is helping local authorities across the country to invest in staff and IT and in
raising standards in the quality of service offered as well as the speed of delivery.
2. Planning Delivery Grant 2007/08 Proposed Allocations Criteria
This paper clarifies proposed arrangements for the allocation for the final Planning
Delivery Grant for 2007/08, amounting to £120 million in total (compared with the
allocation for 2006/07 of £135 million). Of this, the allocation for development control
performance would drop from £71 million to £59 million with reductions in allocations
for plan making and e-planning also of approximately 10%.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
6
28 September 2006
With regard to development control performance, funding would be based solely on
meeting targets rather than on performance improvements, to be paid firstly based
on performance to 30 June 2006, followed by a second tranche based on
performance from 1 July 2006 to 31 March 2007. A £50,000 bonus would be paid for
meeting all three national targets.
In terms of plan-making, Planning Delivery Grant would be awarded for an authority’s
self assessment of its plan making performance (50%) and sustainable development
(50%) on the ground, based on its annual monitoring report (AMR) for the year April
2005 to March 2006.
Plan-making would be measured against how far the authority had achieved the
milestones set out in the original Local Development Scheme (LDS) submitted in
March 2005. The key milestones are:• Regulation 26: Preferred Options consultation
• Regulation 28: Submission
The scoring would be based on 4 points for on-time or early, 3 points for 3 months
late or less, 2 points for between 3-6 months and 1 point for over 6 months late, for
each Development Plan Document (DPD) and then divided to provide a mean score.
In order to test against sustainable development objectives the Government is
proposing 6 indicators on which financial rewards would be based. These are:Housing
• Proportion of residential development which is on previously developed land
• Volume of affordable housing completed
Transport
• Proportion of non residential development complying with parking standards
Environment
• Proportion of energy used in new development which comes from on site
renewables
• Proportion of nationally important wildlife sites which are in favourable
condition
• Proportion of open space managed to the Green Flag standard
In terms of e-planning, more challenging criteria for assessment than in previous
years would be introduced with the aim of rewarding activity in the areas of
continuing quality of online systems and information, take up of services and
monitoring and tracking of planning applications and other information. These criteria
would be assessed after 31 March 2007.
As in previous years funding is available to support authorities in delivering housing
in high and low demand areas, with an increased allocation for this aspect;
unfortunately this Council does not qualify for this funding stream.
The Government intends to announce provisional allocations for the first element of
the grant for handling planning applications at the end of November 2006, whilst the
second announcement covering e-planning, plan making and further allocations for
handling planning applications is expected to be made at the end of May 2007.
Planning Delivery Grant would be paid in two tranches during the financial year
2007/08.
3.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
7
28 September 2006
Comments
It is suggested that the Council indicates its support for the continuation of the current
regime for 2007/08, on the basis that it has benefited significantly from current
arrangements and it has delivered the Government’s objectives for the Grant. It has
been acknowledged by the Audit Commission that the Planning Service is performing
strongly and this is in no small part because of the resource that the Planning
Delivery Grant has provided. It is therefore suggested that because there is a
continuing need for the funding the Government may be requested to consider
continuing a significant element of funding for the future based on the current regime
– see comments on the second consultation paper below.
In terms of the current proposals for allocation to reward plan-making and
sustainable development there are a number of points to make:
Measuring progress against the LDS as submitted in March 2005 is understandable.
The table below indicates how we would be assessed by the proposed scoring
system.
Last milestone
Date
in 05-06 from
first LDS
achieved Mitigating Factors
Score
DPD
Preferred
Delay caused by RSS delay
Core
Options
and uncertainty on housing
Mar-06
Strategy
Sep-06 numbers*
3
Preferred
Delay caused by RSS delay
and uncertainty on housing
Site Specific Options
Proposals
Mar-06
Sep-06 numbers*
3
Total
6
Mean Score
3
However, because we were obliged to delay consultation on preferred options until
the Regional Spatial Strategy Panel had reported, the Council would only receive a
maximum of 3 points. This delay was beyond our control, and yet the Council would
be penalised by the proposed scoring system. Given the delays in 2006/7 on the Site
Specific Proposals, the Council would be unlikely to benefit from this system in future
years either. However, given the delays in LDF production across the country our
performance is likely to be comparable with most other authorities. In proposing this
approach, the Government should realize that such a system could encourage local
planning authorities not to set ambitious timetables for producing LDF documents
thus undermining the Government’s objectives of speeding up the plan-making
process.
Furthermore, the system gives no incentive to prepare a larger number of Local
Development Documents. For example, although we are preparing two Development
Plan Documents in parallel, the system to give a mean score would cancel out this
extra effort.
In relation to the indicators for sustainable development, 6 indicators are unlikely to
give an impression of the sustainability of an area’s plan-making and do not reflect
local issues and characteristics. Moreover, the scoring system is based as much as
on setting targets as on achieving them and might encourage local authorities to set
non-stretching targets in order to be certain of achieving them.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
8
28 September 2006
The table below shows the targets in place during the monitoring year in question,
and an indication of the likely scoring the Council would achieve. As the table shows
for 2005/06 out of a possible 60 points the Council could achieve 38, as it would
score well on use of brown-field land and affordable housing. However, the authority
is likely to do less well on some of the other indicators.
Sustainable Development Indicators
Do you
collect
the core
output
Have you a target
indicator
for this? If so, state
for this?
target
Measure
% Residential
Development on
Use national target
Previously Used
Land
Yes
60%
75 per annum
Affordable Housing Yes
Renewable Energy
Compliant Parking
Quality of
Nationally
Important Wildlife
Sites
Open Space
Yes
Not
monitored
Yes
Yes
10% of
developments over
10 (or 1000m2) in
Core Strategy DPD
What is
perfor
mance
in
200506
Relate
the
perform
ance to
the
target
74
81
nil
Overall
Score
for this
attribute
123%
108%
n/a
n/a
6
0
95% by 2010
No
77
6
Holt
Country
Park
6
Total Score
38
The proposed transport indicator is one that is both difficult to monitor and does not
usefully measure the sustainability of a development. It would be more appropriate
to use an indicator that measures how far developments reduce the need to travel,
such as that included in the LDF Annual Monitoring Report (Core Indicator 3b) which
measures the percentage of new dwelling completions with access to a range of
services.
It is considered unlikely that the Council would benefit significantly from the new eplanning arrangements with current systems unable to achieve high scores. Officers
are giving this matter further consideration and will comment further orally at the
meeting on this point.
4. Housing and Planning Delivery Grant
In this consultation paper the Government has explained that as part of the response
to Kate Barker’s review of housing supply it would reform the Planning Delivery Grant
and undertake a wider consultation on planning and housing incentives, with the aim
of improving the financial framework within which local authorities are able to
respond to the housing needs of their communities.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
10
10
9
28 September 2006
The Barker review identifies a significant short fall in the number of new homes being
built to meet the demands of a growing and changing population. The Government
therefore intends to enable those involved in the delivery of additional housing to
respond to these needs; good planning would be essential to ensure that
communities that accommodate additional housing are sustainable.
The paper comments that the purpose of a new Housing and Planning Delivery Grant
should be to provide an incentive to local authorities and other bodies to respond
more effectively to local housing pressures, to become actively involve in the delivery
of additional housing to meet local demands and incentivise improvements in the
planning system. The new grant therefore should focus on delivery of additional
housing by rewarding those local authorities that take a positive step to meet the
demands for housing created by their community. The grant is also proposed to
continue to support new plan-making work.
The Housing and Planning Delivery Grant should aim to strengthen the incentive of
local authorities to respond to local housing pressures; supporting increased housing
delivery to meet local needs; encourage local authorities to become proactively
involved in the delivery on new housing and unlock blockages in the delivery chain;
return the benefits of growth to the community through new funding streams; and
incentivise efficient and effective planning procedures.
The new grant would be based on delivery of housing rather than incentivising the
processing of planning applications; this would aim to encourage local authorities to
explore best practice and creative partnership approaches. It is intended to support
and resource planning services by incentivising plan-making, through rewarding
progress in delivering local development frameworks and on the achievements of
outcomes of planning policies set out in local development frameworks.
The implications of the change of emphasis from processing planning applications to
delivering housing (presumably measured in terms of completions rather than
permissions) would suggest that staff resource should be focused on bringing
forward housing sites, possibly through the production of development briefs, the
creation of a specialist delivery team and fast-tracking housing proposals. These
issues will need to be addressed once the Government’s intentions have been made
clear.
5. Comments
The new Housing and Planning Delivery Grant regime raises a number of important
issues, including the following:In principle, the move towards recognising delivery of outcomes on the ground as
opposed to rewards based on processes is considered to be positive. Furthermore,
by concentrating on housing delivery, in principle there is a close alignment between
the Government’s aspirations and those of this Council. The consultation paper is
unclear however as to whether all authorities with differing housing needs would
benefit from the new regime or whether resources would be concentrated on those
areas where major growth is due to take place or where there is serious market
failure. Any new regime should ensure that Councils covering areas such as North
Norfolk, with a buoyant private sector market but serious issues concerning
affordable housing are properly recognised and funded appropriately.
The Government’s intention is clearly to give incentives to encourage the delivery of
additional housing. As North Norfolk is not in a “high demand” area as defined by the
Government, it is unlikely that the Council would do well from the new system.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
10
28 September 2006
However, this will depend on how performance is measured. If the Council is
measured against the RSS housing numbers the Council could perform well owing to
the strong market demand in North Norfolk. The consultation paper refers to setting
a floor that needs to be reached before any incentive is granted. Setting a floor
measurement not related to the RSS would appear to undermine the concept of
setting District-level housing figures at all. The Government has indicated through
planning policies that rural areas such as North Norfolk should be areas of relative
housing restraint and yet the proposed PDG allocations could financially penalise the
Council for achieving this policy objective. Members may consider that the RSS
figure is the best approach for measuring performance. Clearly completions are not
consistent year on year and therefore a three-year rolling average would be a better
measure than an annual figure.
A further concern regarding the proposed regime is that it would concentrate solely
on housing delivery. To achieve sustainable communities requires progress and
investment over a wide range of services and facilities and not just housing. It is
suggested that delivery of regeneration objectives and other community facilities
should form part of any new regime. A further danger associated with the new
process is that Councils will doubtless be criticised for submitting to Government
‘bribery’ to force unpopular housing schemes through the planning system,
sometimes against the wishes of local communities. By incentivising a wider range
of facilities and developments this danger could be avoided.
Under these circumstances it is suggested that the Government should be requested
to consider extending the current regime in respect of the inclusion of development
control performance as an element of the new regime. This would encourage
authorities to continue to deliver high standards of service, to achieve the wider
sustainable communities agenda and to avoid perverse incentives in terms of the
allocation of resources and the way in which housing applications may in future be
deemed to be receiving special treatment.
RECOMMENDATION:That the views expressed in the “Comments” sections of this report, together
with those of the Joint Committee which will be forwarded to the Cabinet, form
the basis for the Council’s response to the Government’s Consultation Papers.
Source: (Steve Oxenham/Jill Fisher, Extn 6135/6304
- File Reference: Housing and
Planning Delivery Grant)
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
11
28 September 2006