Agenda item

The Committee had received a report regarding the manner in which prior approval submissions were dealt with. Unlike planning application there was a strict deadline for the determination of prior approval applications and the default position was that if a decision was not given within the deadline the application would be approved regardless of the Council’s intended decision.

Planning legislation currently allowed for various prior approval submissions to be made. In Havering the following were the most common:

a)    Larger Home Extensions (42 days, 6 weeks) – 285 received in previous year;

b)    Certain changes of use (56 days, 8 weeks) – 35 received in previous year;

c)    Demolition of buildings (28 days, 4 weeks) – 7 received in previous week;

d)    Telecommunications development (56 days, 8 weeks) – 34 received in previous year.

Committee Procedure Rule 13e of the Council’s Constitution set out the framework and circumstances under which a Councillor could call-in an application for determination at the Regulatory Services Committee. Constitutionally a Councillor was able to call-in any application.

Given the restricted time scales and the consequences of failure to make a decision officers had historically declined councillors requests to call-in prior approval applications. This was because it would be very difficult to thoroughly consider a submission, prepare a report and present it to Committee, which meets every three weeks within the restricted timetables. The only exception was if an applicant formally agreed to extend the time period as permitted by paragraph 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015 (as amended).

A councillor had recently tried to call-in a prior approval application for a   telecommunications installation and had queried the constitutional basis for their request being declined. Officers were seeking a decision from the Committee to formalise current practice.

The Committee had asked if prior approval applications were included on the list of planning applications circulated weekly. Officers advised that prior approval applications were not currently included on the list.

The Committee had concerns that officers had been operating this system without member approval. These actions were preventing councillors of the opportunity to represent local residents concerns. However, councillors still had the opportunity to make representations to the planning officer dealing with the application.

The Committee did not wish to place the Council’s reputation at risk by seeing a number of prior approval application receiving approval by default because of delays but wished to ensure that the Council were following best practice.

The Chairman called for a vote on whether to accept the recommendations

set out in the report as amended.

In favour of the motion to accept the recommendations

Councillors: Meg Davis, Melvin Wallace, Roger Ramsey, Damian White, Osman Dervish, Clarence Barrett, Darren Wise and Keith Darvill 

Against the motion: Councillors Ray Morgon, Barbara Matthews, Barry Mugglestone, David Durant and Lawrence Webb

The motion was CARRIED by eight votes to five.

The Committee agreed to authorise officers to decline requests for call-in of prior approval applications by councillors for two months to allow officers to submit a further report provided that all prior approval applications were included on the weekly list of planning applications circulated to councillors. The further report will include information on the practice followed by other councils in dealing with prior approval applications and advice from the Planning Advisory Service. It should also include a step by step procedure for the way all four of the types of prior approval applications are processed.

The opportunity should be taken to review the council’s processes for considering planning applications given the number of occasions councillors have been advised by residents that they have not been notified of a planning application.