Letter to Hackney council re: Planning powers
Northwold Area Residents’ Group | 20.12.2001 18:36
Max Caller
Hackney Council
Cc: Hackney Councillors, Philip Wilson-Sharp: Director of Law and Probity, John Lee:Asst Director of Planning and Building Control, Mike Smith Secretary to the Planning Committee, John Fisher Secretary to the Stamford Hill Neighbourhood Committee 6th September 2001
Subject: Delegation of Planning Committee powers to officers
Hackney Council
Cc: Hackney Councillors, Philip Wilson-Sharp: Director of Law and Probity, John Lee:Asst Director of Planning and Building Control, Mike Smith Secretary to the Planning Committee, John Fisher Secretary to the Stamford Hill Neighbourhood Committee 6th September 2001
Subject: Delegation of Planning Committee powers to officers
Dear Mr Caller,
The Northwold Area Residents’ Group (NARG) draws members from over seven hundred homes in Northwold Ward and has participated constructively in local planning matters. We are aware of the measures the Council has now taken to centralise the Borough’s development control process.
We believe strongly that as part of a process designed to ensure propriety and regularity in decision-making practice the Council should urgently review and amend the delegation of decision-making powers to officers, which we gather was introduced on September 18th 2000. As it stands, this delegation does not provide for a balanced consideration of merits by officers and Members, and lacks safeguards for local residents and objectors.
Major Developments
The delegation requires officers to put such applications to Planning Committee only where officers are minded to recommend rejection. If acceptance is proposed, the case need not be put to Members irrespective of the number and force of objections. In NARG’s view that is plainly inappropriate, and internally inconsistent with the way in which “minor developments” are to be handled, where cases are put to committee if there are substantial objections.
In NARG’s view, all major development proposals should be put to the Committee, irrespective of whether the officer recommendation is for or against. Additionally, the definition of a major residential development should also be clarified; the meaning of “15 residential units” is not clear. NARG would support a definition based on the number of habitable rooms, or the number of intended occupants.
Because of their wider significance and implications, NARG would also support the treatment of all hotel and hostel applications, irrespective of size, as major developments, with corresponding neighbour consultation out to a radius of 30m (100ft).
Other (“Minor”) Developments
In NARG’s view, the provisions for handling such cases do not provide sufficient clarity, safeguards or transparency. NARG would support the reintroduction of the previous arrangement whereby any case, which prompts a valid planning objection has to be put to committee. As a fallback, it might be sufficient to have a rule that two objections require Committee consideration, with the Service Manager and Chair agreeing whether cases with only one objection need be taken. Any decisions by the Service Manager and Chair would need to be fully minuted, including all reasons, with those minutes available to the public.
The current arrangements, whereby there is no definition of what constitutes “particular local concerns,” nor any requirement on the Service Manager to implement the views of the Chair (the delegation uses the word “can” rather than “should”) are plainly unsatisfactory, and we are concerned that they might not withstand a legal or Ombudsman challenge.
NARG also has concerns about the terminology here. The delegation refers to “minor development.” NARG believes this is an inappropriate term: such proposals can easily have greater implications for residents than a “major development” in a largely commercial area. In any event, the term “minor development” has a specialised meaning within Planning law which does not correspond in any way to its use here. We therefore suggest that the Council refer simply to “Other development.”
Member requests
NARG also has concerns about the restricted ability of Councillors to ensure that a matter that might otherwise be delegated nevertheless be brought before Committee. NARG understands that previously a request from one Councillor would be sufficient, and would support the re-introduction of that rule. Certainly, the number of Councillors required should be no higher than two Members of the Planning Committee, or five Members of the Council. The Delegation’s specified threshold of five Members of the Planning Committee or twenty Members of the Council is unreasonably high: if left unaltered it will undermine an important local democratic planning safeguard.
Transparency
NARG supports any appropriate actions by the Council to improve the operation of the development control service. But it is essential that any arrangements are transparent and balanced. The new centralised Planning Committee system provides both an appropriate opportunity and reason to reconsider and revise the Delegation of 18th September 2000, to ensure that the new arrangements are both fair and proper from the perspective of applicants, objectors and residents as a whole.
As an integral part of such a process, it is essential that everyone is aware of the rules and procedures in force. To NARG’s knowledge, the Delegation of 18th September 2000 was not publicised to any significant extent, nor is it detailed in any available Planning Department literature. We are concerned that this appears contrary to the Local Government Association’s guidance on planning delegation arrangements. NARG would therefore ask that, as soon as possible after its adoption, the suitably revised Delegation be promulgated thoroughly. NARG would be please to play its part in achieving that end.
NARG would also ask that efforts be redoubled to ensure that the Weekly List of new Planning Applications is brought up to date as quickly as possible. Easy access to an up to date list is itself an important part of a transparent planning process. It is a vital safeguard for residents where delegation means that cases do not have to go to Committee, and where consultation can often be incomplete or ineffective.
Notification
There have been instances where applicants and objectors have not known of a case coming to committee, and were therefore unable to make proper representations. It should be considered essential for Officers to notify all interested parties, applicant and objectors, when a Planning Application is scheduled to go to Committee.
As with other local authorities, we would expect to see the name of the applicant on consultation correspondence. We would also like to see a published list of planning decisions.
We hope these comments are helpful to the Council in its efforts to improve the planning system. We are ready to discuss any of these matters with officers should it be helpful.
Best regards,
David Vail
Secretary: Northwold Area Residents’ Group
The Northwold Area Residents’ Group (NARG) draws members from over seven hundred homes in Northwold Ward and has participated constructively in local planning matters. We are aware of the measures the Council has now taken to centralise the Borough’s development control process.
We believe strongly that as part of a process designed to ensure propriety and regularity in decision-making practice the Council should urgently review and amend the delegation of decision-making powers to officers, which we gather was introduced on September 18th 2000. As it stands, this delegation does not provide for a balanced consideration of merits by officers and Members, and lacks safeguards for local residents and objectors.
Major Developments
The delegation requires officers to put such applications to Planning Committee only where officers are minded to recommend rejection. If acceptance is proposed, the case need not be put to Members irrespective of the number and force of objections. In NARG’s view that is plainly inappropriate, and internally inconsistent with the way in which “minor developments” are to be handled, where cases are put to committee if there are substantial objections.
In NARG’s view, all major development proposals should be put to the Committee, irrespective of whether the officer recommendation is for or against. Additionally, the definition of a major residential development should also be clarified; the meaning of “15 residential units” is not clear. NARG would support a definition based on the number of habitable rooms, or the number of intended occupants.
Because of their wider significance and implications, NARG would also support the treatment of all hotel and hostel applications, irrespective of size, as major developments, with corresponding neighbour consultation out to a radius of 30m (100ft).
Other (“Minor”) Developments
In NARG’s view, the provisions for handling such cases do not provide sufficient clarity, safeguards or transparency. NARG would support the reintroduction of the previous arrangement whereby any case, which prompts a valid planning objection has to be put to committee. As a fallback, it might be sufficient to have a rule that two objections require Committee consideration, with the Service Manager and Chair agreeing whether cases with only one objection need be taken. Any decisions by the Service Manager and Chair would need to be fully minuted, including all reasons, with those minutes available to the public.
The current arrangements, whereby there is no definition of what constitutes “particular local concerns,” nor any requirement on the Service Manager to implement the views of the Chair (the delegation uses the word “can” rather than “should”) are plainly unsatisfactory, and we are concerned that they might not withstand a legal or Ombudsman challenge.
NARG also has concerns about the terminology here. The delegation refers to “minor development.” NARG believes this is an inappropriate term: such proposals can easily have greater implications for residents than a “major development” in a largely commercial area. In any event, the term “minor development” has a specialised meaning within Planning law which does not correspond in any way to its use here. We therefore suggest that the Council refer simply to “Other development.”
Member requests
NARG also has concerns about the restricted ability of Councillors to ensure that a matter that might otherwise be delegated nevertheless be brought before Committee. NARG understands that previously a request from one Councillor would be sufficient, and would support the re-introduction of that rule. Certainly, the number of Councillors required should be no higher than two Members of the Planning Committee, or five Members of the Council. The Delegation’s specified threshold of five Members of the Planning Committee or twenty Members of the Council is unreasonably high: if left unaltered it will undermine an important local democratic planning safeguard.
Transparency
NARG supports any appropriate actions by the Council to improve the operation of the development control service. But it is essential that any arrangements are transparent and balanced. The new centralised Planning Committee system provides both an appropriate opportunity and reason to reconsider and revise the Delegation of 18th September 2000, to ensure that the new arrangements are both fair and proper from the perspective of applicants, objectors and residents as a whole.
As an integral part of such a process, it is essential that everyone is aware of the rules and procedures in force. To NARG’s knowledge, the Delegation of 18th September 2000 was not publicised to any significant extent, nor is it detailed in any available Planning Department literature. We are concerned that this appears contrary to the Local Government Association’s guidance on planning delegation arrangements. NARG would therefore ask that, as soon as possible after its adoption, the suitably revised Delegation be promulgated thoroughly. NARG would be please to play its part in achieving that end.
NARG would also ask that efforts be redoubled to ensure that the Weekly List of new Planning Applications is brought up to date as quickly as possible. Easy access to an up to date list is itself an important part of a transparent planning process. It is a vital safeguard for residents where delegation means that cases do not have to go to Committee, and where consultation can often be incomplete or ineffective.
Notification
There have been instances where applicants and objectors have not known of a case coming to committee, and were therefore unable to make proper representations. It should be considered essential for Officers to notify all interested parties, applicant and objectors, when a Planning Application is scheduled to go to Committee.
As with other local authorities, we would expect to see the name of the applicant on consultation correspondence. We would also like to see a published list of planning decisions.
We hope these comments are helpful to the Council in its efforts to improve the planning system. We are ready to discuss any of these matters with officers should it be helpful.
Best regards,
David Vail
Secretary: Northwold Area Residents’ Group
Northwold Area Residents’ Group
