October 2014 - Cambridge City Council

Cambridge City Council
Planning Services Agents’ Forum
Notes of the meeting
Thursday 6th March 2014
Committee Room 1, Guildhall
Attendees:
Patsy Dell
Sarah Dyer
Glen Richardson
Paul Boucher
Justin Bainton
Richard Maung
Tony Nix
And Thompson
Colin Campbell
Tristan Rees Roberts
City Council (Chair)
City Council
City Council
City Council
January’s
Deloitte LLP
Pleasance Hookham & Nix
Beacon Planning
Savills
Freeland Rees Roberts Architects
1. Apologies:
Amy Richardson
Colin Brown
Michael Vanoli
Simon Ward
Stephen Brown
Marcia Whitehead
Taylor Vinters
January’s
Annand & Mustoe Architects
Simon Ward Architectural Design
Artek Design
Bidwells
2. Notes of the meeting Monday 20th May 2013 and matters arising.
Notes agreed.
3. Local Plan Review – an update by Patsy Dell
Full Council approval was given on the 13th February to submit the Local Plan to the
Secretary of State. This will be together with the Local Plan for South Cambridgeshire.
Officers hope to receive confirmation from the Planning Inspector within 2 weeks, with the
examination to start in late June for completion by end of September. Offices will then
anticipate receipt of the Inspector’s report before Christmas with adoption hopefully before
the end of 2015.
A Programme Officer has been appointed and her contact details will be made available very
soon. Further discussions on allocated sites will be needed, and it is hoped all relevant
SPDs will be completed by the time the Local Plan is adopted.
4. The electronic submission of planning applications and related documentation –
Paul Boucher.
PB thanked Forum members for making their planning application submissions via the
Planning Portal system. Statistics reveal that applications submitted via this route have
increased from 55% to 75% in the last 3 years.
The online Planning consultation system (Public Access) it is now almost 4 years since it
was launched.
A recent meeting of the Residents’ Association Forum did highlight some issues however,
specifically in the difficulty experienced in downloading large files. (Files submitted
electronically can be no more than 5MB, with submissions on CD no more than 25MB).
Justin Bainton (JB) added that January’s usually submit using CDs as this provides greater
flexibility. As large documents split into smaller files become more difficult to navigate
however, there was no straightforward answer. Colin Campbell (CC) confirmed that Savills’
submissions were always via the Portal as this forces file sizes to be limited. There was the
additional issue however of scanned documents always being of an inferior quality when
printed and scanned onto the system. PB confirmed that this matter was being discussed
with the Central Post & Scanning team and that if the documents are provided on CD, then
direct transfer from CD into the online planning system should be the norm.
PD raised the issue of the quality of submissions received and that not all submissions are
registered first time. Officers are currently spending time chasing applicants/agents for
information omitted from the original submission. PD asked whether officers were always
clear in their explanation as to why an application is returned.
Andy Thompson confirmed that Beacon always try to anticipate what’s required so very few
of their submissions are returned. Tristan Rees Roberts (TRR) confirmed that it was usually
only with smaller schemes and that the error was usually theirs. An explanatory phone call
from the City Council had proved to be extremely helpful in the past. Tony Nix confirmed that
issues could usually be resolved over the phone.
PD concluded that this issue would be discussed next time once clear statistics had been
pulled together.
ACTION: The quality of submitted information/statistics on applications registered
first time to be discussed at the next Agents’ Forum.
5. Planning Services – a general update by Patsy Dell and Sarah Dyer
SD confirmed there had been little change in staffing since the last meeting. Officers had
been focussing recently on pre-application response times and examining reports on the
time being taken etc. Officers have also been working to improve their presentations at
Committee and thanks go out to the Forum members who have provided valuable
information on this issue. LEAN review work is ongoing, and officers are working jointly with
PB on how to introduce more effective working methods.
PD invited feedback from Forum members regarding their experiences of the service.
TRR reported on his experience of visiting Mandela House to see the Duty Planning
Officer and having to wait in line for up to an hour by which time the duty service had closed.
SD confirmed she was going to discuss the possibility of an appointment system with the
Customer Service Centre within the next 2 weeks, as this was already in place for other
services.
CC added that the process for receiving a draft Section 106 Agreement from the Council’s
Legal team was often very lengthy. CC was encouraged to feedback specific examples to
PD.
CC also raised the issue of items going before Area Committee and the Council’s delegation
protocol. A small (change of use) application with a single objector could be regarded as
appropriate to go before an Area Committee although a larger, more controversial scheme
may not. PD confirmed that changes could be made, as issues such as these impact on the
service’s performance figures. According to SD, changes of use applications are often
singled out by Area Committees.
JB added this his experience of the pre-application advice process was still on occasion
poor, with formal feedback sometimes slow to arrive and inconsistent with what was said
during discussions leading to mixed messages. According to PD, the charges for preapplication advice are about to be reviewed from April this year (for the first time since 2011)
and Forum members who use this service should be able to receive value for money.
JB stressed that his overall experience of the system was positive, but that an
acknowledgement from a Planning officer would be appreciated, along with a general
improvement in communication.
ACTION: Forum members to contact Sarah Dyer with specific examples of when the
pre-application advice service has been poor.
PD highlighted the main priorities for the service:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Local Plan Review
Sites being taken forward – finalising Masterplans and design briefs which are at various
stages.
Performance and capacity e.g. the discharge of conditions and non-material
amendments. Feedback from Forum members is welcomed.
City Deal. The City Council is still waiting for an announcement. This will likely have an
impact on strategic Planning and infrastructure delivery.
Managing growth. Officers are currently working on multiple major applications being
submitted in parallel.
Staffing. The service is not quite fully staffed yet but has the benefit of input from Urban
Design and Conservation officers, aswell as external Panels that all make a valuable
contribution into the process.
TRR praised the Planning officers for providing a generally brilliant service.
Richard Maung enquired as to the programme for responding to all the Local Plan reps and
whether the system of PPAs (Planning Performance Agreements) was effective. PD
confirmed that all reps were being sent to the Inspector and so would not be responded to
individually. Officer experience of PPAs had been mixed but that they did in general terms
result in improved performance. Officers agree jointly with consultants on resourcing and the
timeframe commitment on a particular project. Feedback from officers has been positive and
PPAs are being used more frequently. PD invited the Forum to feedback on their
experiences of PPAs.
CC confirmed that agents’ costs were significantly higher with the additional PPA charges.
PD added that as officers cannot manage multiple major schemes on similar timetables, a
PPA was one way of addressing the issue.
RM confirmed that PPAs had worked well in terms of committing the required resource but
that commitment does not reach as far as the discharge of conditions. The key driver for
applicant and agents is when the work can begin on the ground and that depends on
conditions.
PD confirmed that officers would welcome future discussions on resource and deliverability
but that there were difficulties associated with almost 90% of submitted schemes being
approved.
6. The Design & Conservation Panel Review – update by Glen Richardson.
A useful discussion between officers and Forum members was had in July 2013 and
comments at that meeting aswell as those of independent consultant Barry Shaw were
collated and formed the basis of a report taken to Planning Committee 5th February this year
recommending some improvements
http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s22887/Review%20of%20the%20Cambridge
%20Design%20and%20Conservation%20Panel%20%20Findings%20and%20Recommendations%20-%20Report.pdf
Barry Shaw was commissioned to write his own independent report based on his
observations of Panel meetings, and interviews held with officers, Forum members, Panel
members and Planning Committee.
Over the coming months, officers will be working to implement these improvements as
approved by Committee. These include having a more transparent, consistent attendance,
clarifying the role of officers at Panel meetings, setting a clear criterion for application
selection and setting clear criteria for presentations.
The Panel will have a page on the City Council’s website where officers can direct
presenters to these new criteria and to revised Terms of Reference.
The issue raised by agents of allowing presenters to be present during the Panel’s
deliberations was not regarded as appropriate.
Work to appoint a permanent Chair is ongoing.
Form members agreed that it would remain to be seen whether all the recommended
changes would be positive. AT in the past had experiences of Panel meetings with either no
architect present, or an architect arriving late and enquired whether it was possible to handpick architects depending on their expertise and the nature of the project. This had been
done with the Quality Panel according to GR. Attendance had been casual in the past but
the emphasis would now be on consistency and having the appropriate turnover of
representatives.
AT stressed that the quality of the feedback received was key; reflecting the issues and
complexities of a scheme. All are aware of the weight Panel comments carry at Committee.
GR stressed that the Panel will no longer be re-visiting a proposal 4 or 5 times as this is not
considered efficient use of the Panel’s time. The quality of the presentations was an issue
however. Officers do not wish to be prescriptive, but the quality of the presentation does
impact on the Panel’s evaluation and therefore on the officer’s report to Committee.
All agreed site visits were extremely useful and could potentially be arranged more
frequently.
7. Any Other Business
• Design & Construction Awards (GR). The City Council received a record 27 submissions.
The presentations and awards will be given at the annual CFCI dinner to be held in 2
weeks. A press release is to follow.
• Insight into an agents’ role and their relationship with the Planning service (PD). Those
attending the next Forum meeting are warmly invited to give a presentation on the issues
facing them and their relationship with the service. A dialogue would help to resolve
current issues.
ACTION: Agents to present at the next Agents’ Forum on their experiences and
relationship with the Planning service.
ACTION: MJ to invite Principal Scientific Officer Jo Dicks to the next Forum for an
item on Noise and Air Quality.
8. Date of next meeting – Monday 6th October 2014,
Committee Room 1, 17:00-19:00

Download Report