Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Director City Development.

Agreed:

RESOLVED that the Executive Committee note the Consultation Statement, which documents the responses to the consultation on the proposals for pre-application charges and the introduction of the Liveable Exeter Placemaking Charter, attached at Appendix A of the report.

That Executive RECOMMEND that the officer recommendations to Council be amended as follows:-

(1) approves the introduction of preapplication charges as set out in the report and endorses the Liveable Exeter Placemaking Charter attached at Appendix B of the report;

(2) grants delegated authority to the Director of City Development, in consultation with the Leader, to make minor editorial changes to the Liveable Exeter Placemaking Charter, attached at Appendix B, prior to its publication on the City Councils website; and

(3) grants delegated authority to the Director of City Development, in consultation with the Leader, to regularly monitor and review the Liveable Exeter Placemaking Charter, and to make minor alterations to improve its clarity and detail.

Reason for Decision: As set out in the report and as amended at the meeting.

The Executive received the report which set out the details of the six-week consultation on the proposals for the provision of charging for pre-application advice on major planning applications, and the introduction of the Liveable Exeter Placemaking Charter.

Particular reference was made to:-

·         the Council currently provided a free pre-application advice service, and implementing a fee for advice would provide a more proactive service and encourage developments whilst being consistent with neighbouring authorities;

·         the report was seeking delegated authority to make minor editorial changes before publishing the charter on the council's website, and to also ensure it was updated regularly;

·         benchmarking work had been undertaken on charges with other authorities, as well as market testing with consultants prior to launching consultation;

·         the fee structure was divided into three bands, to reflect the complexity and need for specialist advice, and income would be reinvested to improve the quality of the service provided; and

·         the consultation was targeted to a specific group of likely users of the service and some criticism had been received  around the limited scope.

Opposition group leaders spoke on the item and made the following points:-

·         Cllr Mitchell – enquired on the differences between developers with various numbers of homes and charging rates and whether there was flexibility to charge by the number of units being produced. He also enquired on which authorities had been benchmarked with and whether future review periods were needed.

·         Cllr Moore –enquired on whether there were any risks to other planning applications and decision making and how it would improve team capacity. She further enquired about formalising community engagement, enhancing decision making processes and whether councillors and public could see the review panel reports and what had been agreed.

During the discussion, the following points were made:

·         the report was welcomed, given there had previously been a public misunderstanding of pre-application advice, providing clarification on its purpose was beneficial;

·         would there be any issues relating to an application being refused by the Planning Committee, if a developer had paid for advice?

·         would the paid service create extra work for planning officers? and

·         how would the fees be re-invested to support the planning team and improve application processes?

In response to questions raised, the Director of City Development advised that:-

·         the report set out a legal framework for charging for pre application fees, which would provide a quality of service, but was not a decision process;

·         advice provided from officers would be the same as that provided now but would provide a more project management approach. Government guidance encouraged the publication of planning performance agreements and Design Review Panel advice would be quoted in officer reports;

·         the service would be contained within the major projects team to support larger, complex applications and would not impact on the overall planning team dealing with householder applications; and

·         neighbouring authorities had been compared as part of the benchmarking process; and

·         the approach to a flat rate would be structured to reflect the services provided to an applicant.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53