Issue - items at meetings - Department for communities and Local Government - Technical Consultation on Planning

Report of the Director of Environment, Development and Housing (copy attached)

RESOLVED – (1) That the Committee approves and endorses the interim response to the Government’s consultation seeking to further streamline the planning system (Appendix 1) of the report.

That the Committee requests the Department for Communities and Local Government to consider giving short term holiday lets their own planning use class.

40.1    The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Environment, Development and Housing seeking approval and endorsement of the interim response sent by officers on behalf of the council in response to the recent government consultation on proposals to further streamline the planning system.

40.2    It was explained that an interim response (set out in Appendix 1 to the report) had been submitted to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in order to meet the consultation deadline of 26 September 2014, but this was subject to the approval and endorsement of the response at this meeting.

40.3    The Head of City Planning and Development, Martin Randall explained that on the 31 July 2014 the Government had published a wide-ranging set of proposed changes to the planning system for a six week period of consultation covering: speeding up neighbourhood planning; changes to the use class order and expanding permitted development rights; improving the use of planning conditions and the planning application process; raising the screening thresholds for Environmental Impact Assessment; and further changes to the nationally significant infrastructure consents regime. Some of the proposals were intended to make permanent a number of temporary permitted development rights arrangements which had been introduced in May 2013 in order to stimulate development during the recession, whilst others had been announced during the March 2014 Budget, such as further clarification of the proposed ‘three tier’ development management system. The general direction of most of the proposals was one of deregulation and streamlining, but a small number of the provisions sought to provide local planning authorities with greater controls.

40.4    Councillor Morgan stated that whilst broadly supporting the approach that had been taken and fully understanding the current thrust of the National Policy Framework, he none the less had concerns in relation to the level of student housing especially in relation student housing, specifically where this was provided in what had previously been modestly sized scale family homes. This could result in cramped, over crowded poor quality accommodation for the students and could easily lead to noise nuisance issues and other due to the close proximity to neighbouring dwellings. Councillor Morgan stated that he also had concerns in respect of the potential loss of shop and office accommodation and the fact that premises offering pay day loans at high interest were included in the B1 use class.

40.5    Councillor Brown enquired why a report on this subject had not been put to the Committees’ September meeting. It was explained that the time scale for doing so had been too tight. Councillor Brown explained that she considered this was unfortunate, as although supportive of the response overall there were elements of it with which the Conservative Group representatives on the Committee could not agree, namely in relation to parking standards and also in relation to the use of Article 4 Directions. Whilst she considered that it could be appropriate to apply maximum figures for parking in the city centre she did not agree this was appropriate on the outskirts. Moreover in relation to Article 4 Directions, Councillor Brown stated that whilst obviously there was a need generally to protect major employment sites there were also vacant offices which had been empty for a long time and it could be beneficial to use these brown field sites for much needed housing before using the urban fringe. Councillor Brown went on to state that because she was unable to vote in support of the response in its totality that she would abstain from voting.

40.6    The Head of City Planning and Development stated that the response given had been intended to provide flexibility and to recognise that there were some differences between the city centre.

40.7    Councillor Hawtree stated that the response represented a cogent and firm response. He noted that it was disappointing that even when Planning Permission was granted due to market and other factors this did not always result in developments being built.

40.8    Councillor Randall supported the response as in his view it had sought to illustrate the need for mixed development, the Open Market development in London Road was a recent and splendid example of that.

40 9    A vote was taken and on a vote of 4 for with 6 abstentions the recommendations set out in the report and below were agreed.

40.10  RESOLVED – (1) That the Committee approves and endorses the interim response to the Government’s consultation seeking to further streamline the planning system (Appendix 1) of the report ; and

(2) That the Committee requests the Department for Communities and Local Government to consider giving short term holiday lets their own planning use class.

Note: Councillors Brown, Morgan Robins, Smith, C Theobald and Wealls abstained from voting.