General discussion forum

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:45:20 BST

Are Sui Generis HMO's considered to be a different use class from C4 HMO's. If so, would planning permission be required for change of use from one to the other? I ask this, because student landlords in my neighbourhood are further subdividing rooms in their HMO's in order to squeeze several extra tenants (more than 6) into each property. Can planners regulate the housing density of such HMO's? Submitted by: Louise Block

Re: Planning permission should or should not be seeked for class C4 shared house

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:59:47 BST

I need responses please. Submitted by: Faiz Hameed

Re: Cutting red tape

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:08:01 BST

Agree re. the publicity requirements for planning (and not just planning, what about cost of advertising Traffic Reg Orders). In the sprit of 'localism' this should be left to the local authority to determine how publicity should be carried out. If necessary, use the SCI to set out how this will be done and consult key stakeholders. I'm not aware of local groups who rely on this since they all receive the weekly list from us. As for the government response to the Killian Pretty follow-up consultation, the justification for not changing the requirements defies any logic (apart from keeping the newspapers happy). Come on Mr Pickles - this is a no brainer! Submitted by: mark silverman

On or Nearby? New business in greenbelt

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:54:38 BST

Hi, Application for a new business in greenbelt. Policy states the applicant must live on or nearby the site for the business to be adequately supervised day and night. There is no accomodation on site. What distance is considered 'on or nearby' in your experience? Thanks Submitted by: Charlotte Douglas

Affordable housing and HMOS

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:24:07 BST

An application has been submitted for a HMO. The design and access statement states that the provision of affordable housing is not required as the HMO are for the private rental market and would be unviable. Could anyone offer advice on this please? Thanks Jagdeep Birk Southampton City Council Submitted by: Jagdeep Birk

Re: Do you use a SharePoint intranet for Planning?

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:53:22 BST

Hi, We've just started using SharePoint for planning and the HCA's local investment plan process. We're using it across the housing market area (four local authorities) and it's helping with the sharing of documents and data that would be too big to share over email. We're in the early stages of using it, so there are some teething problems, but I think it's an excellent data sharing and storage tool and there's huge potential with the discussion and meeting/events facilities too. It can be difficult to navigate, but I think we're slowly learning how to get around the site! So far we're using it just as officers, to varying degrees, but it would be great if we could get members signed up too. I can see potential for using SharePoint to circulate meeting papers and agendas etc. Harriet Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

Do you use a SharePoint intranet for Planning?

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:43:55 BST

Nothing to do with managing planning applications themselves - this is solely about sharing information within the service. We have a test site running that will in due course replace our traditional Shared Drive, which has suffered from poor housekeeping in the past. SharePoint offers a lot more: Libraries of shared documents, new communications methods, better document security, much easier to find what you need, manage lists and diaries. So far its working well for our administrators. Whats your experience? Submitted by: Steve Foster

Re: Cutting red tape

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:14:07 BST

stopping the newspaper adverts was agreed but the local newspaper industry managed to convince the then Govenment that it would result in the closure of many small local newspapers due to the loss of income. so the proposal was withdrawn. I would be sorry to see our local paper diw however I do not see it as the role of the local Planning Authority to keep it afloat! Submitted by: Valerie Jacobi

Sustainability Appraisals

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:12:06 BST

The question of bias has arisen IF only one officer assesses all of the sites in the SA. Can anyone give advise on whethere this is a valid point, or has any other org. been asked to assess this? Submitted by: Carolanne Taylor

Re: Cutting red tape

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:06:16 BST

Hi Getting rid of the need to complete the agricultural holding declaration on application forms. It is totally irrelevant on 99.9% of applications and is probably the single most common reason that we have to send applications back Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 2005 SI 2005/2087 as amended etc Certificate under Article 7. This is very detailed but is a source of customer frustration Ceasing requirement to advertise planning applications in the local paper -Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 2005 SI 2005/2087 as amended- section 8 and advertise on Council web site only saving significant costs of advertising. Camden LBC had a private bill and achieved this The new Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations SI 2010/948 be revisited as they are very complex and will require an army of accountants/surveyors/lawyers to calculate Simplifying the Town and Country Planning (General Development Order) Procedure Order 1995 SI 1995/418 as amended many many times Removal or significant simplification of the requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments - very complicated to work out and can result in 2 pre application submissions (one scoping and one screening ) and then have all the information with a planning application. SI 2008/2093 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact) Assessment(Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008 and associated amendments circulars etc This is great fun isnt it??? Thanks to Simon - I will have a lookat his combined Regs Susan Submitted by: Susan Harley

Re: Contact Centres - Do they work for Planning?

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:14:35 BST

The approach indicated by Eric is ideal. We've worked with services who have sought to put the 'difficult' calls into contact centers and as others above have indicated this can be very problematic so the split is likely to be right. Also the use of call backs is important here to get the balance between service levels and costs. Queue theory based models can show the impact of call reductions and resource needs and the simulations are likely to show that Eric's approach is close to the ideal as is realistic. Customer satisfaction results we have reviewed also support this model as being a good match between cost and need. But I wonder if Patrick's approach is not an even better 1st starting point. We've worked with a number of services and found that letter and website information is often failing to reduce demand through simple wording issues e.g. one site we looked at had language which when assessed with standard tools was way more complex than an editorial in The Telegraph. When we observed real users interacting with this (and also with the standard letters) we had highly educated individuals taking up to 20 minutes to find web information and they gave letters a rating of 1-2 out of 5 for clarity and usefulness! Putting these things right took 50% of calls away from planners (which was rather more than the previous attempt using contact centers which only reduced call volumes to planners by 45%..at a cost of many 10s of k). Beware also of the 'hydra effect' where a headcount reduction is achieved in planning but another one appears in the contact centre.. and where this doesn't happen that the cost of script building, training, licences etc for contact centre staff isn't more than the extra productivity gains from the planners (and incidentally generalist contact centre staff are likely to take longer to answer the same question due to learning effects, set up time loading scripts etc so which needs to be offset against any assumed reduced salary costs) . Which takes me to the last issue, why do we want to put calls in the contact centre? If the business justification its not to reduce headcount by measurable productivity gains then what else is it for? We know customers prefer to speak to planners so service gains are unlikely (unless they can't reach planning staff) so this may be a questionable business justification. And if it is for planning productivity reasons are we sure there aren't other measures that will produce a better ROI? These aspects and others may be why we've started to see what appears to be a trend away from contact centre models as vehicles for cost saving . Submitted by: Alasdair Robertson

Planning permission should or should not be seeked for class C4 shared house

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:30:58 BST

I have a house which is given on rent since last 10 years to six different people. I have extended my house utility area in October 2009 and partitioned 2 new rooms and I was asked to apply for planning permission for 8 people which I did. My planning application was refused. I had several meetings with Planning Officer on the said subject. Planning Officer has given me three options, which goes under: 1. Appeal against the decision. 2. Convert my house into 2 flats 3. Reduce number of people to 6. In January 2010, I reduced the number of people to 6 and informed the Planning Officer and also the Borough Council. Now Planning Officer advised that you still need to apply for planning permission for 6 people because of the new law (for class C4 - 6th April, 2010). My argument is when I have reduced the number of people to 6 (hence my property is back in previous existing state) than why should I need to get planning permission now for class C4? Submitted by: Faiz Hameed

Re: Cutting red tape - newspaper advertising

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:47:24 BST

I think newspaper advertising is the least effective and expensive method of consultation on planning applications. Just the basic weekly list in the local press is around 500 per week and I'm fairly confident to say that neighbour notification letter are the most effective means of communicating details of developments to those most likely to be affected. Obviously planning applications are routinely displayed on our authority website also and consultation letters and site notices provide details of how to access these online documents. Surely newspaper advertising is not cost effective for local authority? Submitted by: John Theobald

Re: Cutting red tape

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:52:02 BST

I put together a combined DP regulations document of my own, as I was totally unable to work with three separate documents. No guarantee on accuracy, but I think it's not too far wrong. Happy to share. I agree that it would have been considerably more helpful if the DCLG had done it first though. Submitted by: Simon Thornley

Re: Contact Centres - Do they work for Planning?

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:26:43 BST

They do for Kirklees, but the way it's done has to be meticulously thought through and preparation and training for call centre and planning staff needs to be really thorough before going live - from start to finish it took us around 6 months but it was worth it. Basically we split our calls between those that the call centre (Kirklees Direct, or KD) can deal with and those that they can't. Most routine calls and queries have a structured response that either gives the enquirer the info they need or tells them where to get it. 'Do I need planning permission' is dealt with by a referral to the Planning Portal if the caller has web access, and many happlily take this up once it's been signposted. This deals with around 60% of the calls. The rest are logged on a web based database that is checked regularly by planning support staff who either deal with it or pass on by re-allocation to the area / specialist teams within the application. Planners in each of the teams take it in turns to check their inbox (they all have their own) and deal with enquiries on the same day if possible. This means around 80% of all 'hand offs' from KD are dealt with inside 24 hours. KD take around 300/400 calls a week so the transfer of work is significant. Although we don't publicise case officers phone numbers, planning agents and applicants always have a direct line to the person dealing with their application (provided on the acknowledgement) so they don't have to go through KD. Similarly (and importantly) Councillors also have direct lines. We had a few complaints at the start of the process (and by this I mean perhaps half a dozen) but it settled down very quickly and although I have to agree it's probably not saving any money it's made a huge difference to the speed and quality of the general advice service we can provide. Submitted by: Eric Woulds

Re: Contact Centres - Do they work for Planning?

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:52:22 BST

Patrick, we have gone down this route from Jan this year. In brief, our front of house reception team moved to a corporate customer service centre, so the same people are answering the same calls, but in a different building and as part of a different service. The team did not deal with the technical enquiries, ie the does it need planning permission question either before or after, and we had prior to the change stopped a free pd service. Biggest downside for us has been that the team also managed a drop in reception centre, which with the resource sitting elsewhere, has now been made appointment only, and our customers see this as a backward step. What made the change easier was that incoming phones calls and visits to our reception had been dropping over the last few years, and this is a factor of the increasing use of the internet to view plans and make comments and find information etc. Finally, and to echo Mikes first cautionary comment, this change did not save planning any money at the change over date. Submitted by: Bryan Cadman

Re: Remove my name from your website IMMEDIATELY!

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:42:21 BST

Thanks, Phil. I will pass your feedback onwards and upwards. Best regards Mark Submitted by: Mark K Smitham

Re: Remove my name from your website IMMEDIATELY!

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:24:08 BST

We have had such a case which went to the information commissioner. In our case it was on the Development Control committee papers. The Information commissioner was happy that only the name and address appears (no emails, phone numbers or signatures). He was also content as we had taken all reasonable attempts to inform parties as t how their information would be used (on the neighbour letter, the website, the site notice) unsolicited correspondence was almost at the sender s own risk. Interestingly, Google initially found the name and address in a PDF document. As a good will gesture we made the page a picture (tiff) and the Google index dropped it after a week or so. It was resurrected some 18 months latter when Google boffins started doing OCR on pictures. We now have to ensure that car reg numbers in photographs are unreadable. In short, provided you have been reasonable in making it plain that correspondence will be placed on the web, and it will be removed after 6 months (period for a planning inquiry) the information commissioner should be content. If in doubt, ring them and ask for an informal adjudication. Phill Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Remove my name from your website IMMEDIATELY!

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:49:46 BST

Yup, that's true John but only if we had already set that up. If we had setup the robots nofollow then they would not be cached. However, once the pages are cached there is nothing we can do about it after the fact? Submitted by: Mark K Smitham

Re: Remove my name from your website IMMEDIATELY!

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:35:15 BST

"Technically, even if we do remove the applicant's details the information will remain in the ether online in search engine caches on servers worldwide, which is something we can do nothing about. So amending the data on our website will have no impact on finding the data via search engines." This is NOT true. You can set up pages to reject the spiders/robots that cache your website pages. We had a page here with a link to the google 'how to' but i archived it. maybe its in their cache ;-) Give me a couple of hours and i'll resuscitate it. John. Submitted by: John Chantler

Remove my name from your website IMMEDIATELY!

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:15:31 BST

An applicant has requested their name and address to be taken off our website. "I am a little concerned that now after several months, even with a most basic search, my name and home address appear easily on any internet seach engine. I would wish these details to be removed immediately." Has anyone experienced this before and if so how did you respond? Legally, I think the information is a public record and therefore there is nothing to force us to remove their details. However, as a matter of courtesy I do not see why we could not amend this information online. Technically, even if we do remove the applicant's details the information will remain in the ether online in search engine caches on servers worldwide, which is something we can do nothing about. So amending the data on our website will have no impact on finding the data via search engines. Please note, this is not so much a technical question as a best practice question. Everyone's feedback on this would be greatly appreciated. Submitted by: Mark K Smitham

Re: Contact Centres - Do they work for Planning?

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:39:45 BST

Patrick, As Phil will probably tell you, the first thing you need to know is your demand - that is, what enquiries are being made? Before we were submerged into Wiltshire, Kennet DC did have a call centre and we found that it was very successful at taking out a lot of routine enquiries. (What forms do I need; what is the progress of an application, where can I see the plans). Contact centre staff can be relatively easily trained to deal with these, especially if the plans and details of an application are available on the web that they can view and direct callers too if they want to see them. Where it is not so good is in dealing with the Do I need permission? questions, unless you did what we did and simply answer such telephone calls by sending out a standard form that could be completed with the dimensions etc on and then sent in - as we only deal with PD queries in writing anyway. The advantage of a contact centre to a Development Management Team is that it can remove a lot of routine calls that either your officers or admin team would have to deal with, freeing them up to deal with the applications. Of course, you can make life even better for yourselves if you try to cut out a lot of the calls in the first place, by putting the answers to some of the questions in your neighbour or acknowledgement letters. Ours direct people as the first point of contact to the web, where they can see the plans and follow the progress of the application, including consultation responses, without needing to contact us. Two cautionary notes - firstly, watch how much the corporate pot stings you for in your budget for the services; Secondly, having built up what was a pretty good service in advising people whether they needed permission (and whether they would get it) , like many other Councils, we will be likely to be stopping such free services in the forseeable future, and going down the Certificate of Lawfulness route/pointing to the planning portal and its interactive house. Submitted by: Mike Wilmott

Re: Brownfield land and private residential gardens

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:22:19 BST

There are a number of other situations I would also like to hear members' view on: 1) Does this only apply to C3 use class or does "residential garden land" include sites currently in all C classes and Sui Generis residential uses such as hostels? 2) Does this apply to the conversion of ancillary garden buildings into new dwellings and ancillary annexes (which meet the monitorign criteria of a new dwelling), and the conversion of annexes into independent dwellings? My understanding was that this change to PPS3 to to steer housing development away from "green" residential gardens to prevent "garden-grabbing" but we need to be clear if we are protecting plot sizes, residential density or reducing built form footprints. Submitted by: jennifer heaton

Brownfield land and private residential gardens

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:36:31 BST

Following the removal of private residential gardens from the definition of brownfield land in PPS 3, I wondered what may occur in a potential situation of a demolition of a dwelling and the redevelopment of that site for a greater number of dwellings - would the whole site be classed as brownfield, or just the portion where the previous dwelling previously stood? Submitted by: Jenny Blair

Re: Cutting red tape

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:01:43 BST

I agree with Tim and have posted this suggestion on the Treasury site looking for cost cutting ideas. POS have long supported this, as did Killian Pretty. I have just taken a short paper on it to our local MP who has promised to put it on Pickles's desk. Here's hoping one last push........ Submitted by: Mike Wilmott

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:51:25 BST

Wigan Council has just done this and expects to be able to deliver significant savings over the next 5 years. Contact Penny McGinty on 01942 404255 for further information,. Submitted by: Mike Worden

Re: Cutting red tape

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:27:30 BST

The costs of Press Notice giving details of applications are significant to LPA's and to what end? Can any one point to a response received as a consequence of a Press Notice? With site notices, direct neighbour notifications, Community Engagement Exhibitions, the Council Web Site and email notifications, is there really a need to spend thousands of pounds of advertising in the Local Press? Submitted by: Tim Wood

Re: Cutting red tape

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:49:55 BST

My candidate for review - the Advertisement regulations! Given the impact that these have on the quality of places, I have always been perplexed about the reason for keeping consideration of these apart from the rest of planning. Mainstreaming management of advertisement control would give a good opportunity for better local management of the environment, could be used as an effective tool for local economic development and could be subject to appropriate proportionate local control through local development orders. It would simplify the planning system and reduce the number of consents necessary for a development and reduce administrative costs. Submitted by: Phillipa Silcock

Re: Cutting red tape

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:41:47 BST

As well as combining SIs relating to the T&CP (GDP) Order, how about combining the Development Plan Regulations into one single consolidated set of Regs and committing to do this in future when new amendments are produced. Submitted by: Peter Shadbolt

Cutting red tape

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:34:12 BST

Have you all seen this? http://www.communities.gov.uk/newsstories/newsroom/1633580 Anyone got any ideas they want to throw around or gather momentum on before sending towards the cut red tape inbox at CLG? "Mr Pickles invited all council staff and sector experts to suggest CLG sponsored statutory guidance, secondary legislation or regulations they think should be removed so councils can get on with their job. All 'Cut Red Tape' ideas will be considered. Send them to: cutredtape@communities.gsi.gov.uk " "4. Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995/419 and 16 amendment orders. Simplify. From October combine seventeen statutory instruments into one. This will greatly clarify the planning application system for local authorities, applicants, and other interested parties. The greater clarity provided will free-up valuable local planning authority officer time, which can be redirected towards more fruitful actives than wading through pages of amendments to secondary legislation. " Cheers, John. Submitted by: John Chantler

Re: Contact Centres - Do they work for Planning?

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:54:55 BST

No No and thrice No We have a contact centre here at Stroud. When it went in, it started with Revs and Bens and then expanded over about a year. When it came to Planning (and BC) we started the FAQs and training, and quickly came to the conclusion that from a custommer point of view, we were building in failure demand (see John Seddon - Vanguard - Systems thinking). The advice required was based on so many constraints and assumptions, that the custommer service staff were giving out incorrect advice (not their fault) or taking a message, and passing it on. As a result, Planning agreed to provide on Business Support officer to deal with form filling and neighbours who wanted to see the digitised plans, and a duty planner/technician to answer THERE and THEN the questions such as "do i need planning permission" The ethos of systems thinking is deal with it properly the first time, then you arn't dealing with follow up calls, confusion and ultimately complaints (have you ever costed the end to end costs of a complaint... you should) If i can be of assistance to you, patrick, or others, please let me know. phil.skill@stroud.gov.uk Submitted by: Philip Skill

Contact Centres - Do they work for Planning?

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:04:18 BST

Many planning authorities are moving all or part of their general enquiries to contact/call centres. I'd be interested to hear from authorities where this has been successful and the reasons why it worked. Submitted by: Patrick Reid

Re: Bed & Breakfast - permitted development?

Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:35:00 BST

It's never going to be permitted development - the question is whether its going to be development by virtue of there being a material change of use. We used to have a lot of B&B issues when I worked in the Lake District and we adopted a checklist. I don't have copy now but it covered things like the number of letting rooms, the season, whether there were locks/numbers on the doors, en-suite or shared facilities, the method of advertising etc. The more it looked like a hotel the more likely there was a material change of use. Mike Submitted by: Michael Hyde

Bed & Breakfast - permitted development?

Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:07:49 BST

Does anybody have any procedures, notes, or references to legistation on whether conversion to Bed & Breakfast is PD or not? Submitted by: Mark K Smitham

Design Dragons for Solent Design Awards

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:30:14 BST

The judges for the new Solent Design Awards are set to be Design Dragons as they root out the best buildings or spaces in the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) area. But, for them, the winners will only be places or spaces which enrich their communities and already it s attracting plenty of entries. Director of CABE Space and Government Adviser, Sarah Gaventa, says: We re going to be extremely critical of schemes that don t contribute or make a real difference to their neighbourhoods. These awards are all about making great places for people and communities not just isolated good-looking buildings or spaces. The Awards will reward buildings or public spaces where design has created something outstanding, lifting the quality of the community in which it sits. We live among some beautiful buildings and public spaces but sadly among some hideous ones too, says Paul Grover, Chief Executive of the Solent Centre for Architecture and Design (SCA+D), the competition organisers. We want more beauty here and by recognising design which is visionary but practical, imaginative and uplifting, contributing to the wider community rather than being just a building. The Solent Design Awards will show how great design solutions can contribute real social and economic value. Top built environment professionals have joined the judging panel. They include: Director of Public Space at the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, Sarah Gaventa, the former host of Channel 4s Demolition Detectives, author of New Public Spaces and a writer and broadcaster appearing regularly radio s Front Row and BBC TV s The Culture Show Lorraine Farrelly, Deputy Head of the School of Architecture at the University of Portsmouth, author and expert on urban design Roger Zogolovitch, Chairman of Lake Estates, a specialist developer whose passion for design has enabled his company to transform redundant industrial buildings into modern offices much in demand Lisa Jackson, a town planner and urban designer as well as a sustainability specialist and master planner. She emphasises the practical and happily explains in her cv that she has designed everything from city quarters to kitchen extensions Paul Grover says that the essence of a winning entry will be the way it demonstrates a richer life for its users, contributing to the economic, domestic and cultural environment in which it sits. We need more buildings and spaces where people want to spend time, says Paul. Where is our equivalent of Barcelona s La Ramblas, where design has turned a crumbling local economy into a huge tourist centre - connecting the City to the waterfront and adding value to the life of the city as a whole? Closer to home the award-winning Jubilee Library in Brighton has transformed an uninspiring part of the City, helping to create a new cultural quarter. They re both places where people value place and space. ENDS Note: The Awards are sponsored by The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) Quality Places Panel, and uniquely, from the 15th September, the public can vote online for their winner. The Awards include an overall winner, a sustainability winner and the public s top choice. It s organised by the Solent Centre for Architecture + Design (SCA+D), and any building or development completed after April 1st 2005 can be entered, and these can be nominated by anyone: architects, contractors, clients, local authorities or members of the public. Full details at www.solentdesignawards.org.uk and submissions must be received by 5.00 pm on 20th August 2010. Submitted by: Sandi Turner

Re: Rural Exception Sites Policy

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:08:52 BST

David, Emma is quite right, we have been successfully operation a policy Shropshire wide since last year posted as Interim Planning Guidance. If you would like to talk this through further once you have checked the document out on our web site then do not hesitate to contact me or Helen Howie in the Policy team or David Garratt in the Housing Enabling team from a user perspective. Submitted by: Jake Berriman

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:48:23 BST

Bolton Council Planning Division has just undergone significant Value for Money changes which include this issue - along with a reduction in staffing across the Division of 30% (25 posts out of 75). These changes have taken place within the last 6 months. Val Walsh may be able to offer some early experiences on 01204 336065. Submitted by: Andrew Chalmers

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:13:06 BST

Hi Rebecca Here at Barnsley we have also merged our Building Control & Development Management teams at the same time as a downsizing exercise took place about 18 months ago. Transition was relatively smooth and I do think we benefit from having a multifunction support team although I would have liked to have seen more achieved in knowledge sharing but the reduction in resource has slowed this down. Happy to share our experience with you if you need any more information. My number is (01226) 775772. Cheers Submitted by: Paul Clifford

Re: Scanning planning documents

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:09:00 BST

I note that some of the corespondants are having to keep paper copies for legal reasons. This is possibly because your systems are not auditable. May i suggest that part of the cost benefits in scanning to a robust system is that you can rely on the scanned images. When taking our (Stroud) DMS forward, we were minded of the powers of the ombudsman and the risks of Judicial Review. It is a Barristers Heaven to find a Council who has TWO sets of files, one for the website, and one for the officer. Which is the planning file? will be the first question. We have abandoned paper files to avoid this, and have benefited financialy from it. we have invested in dual screens to compensate, but that was a minor cost compared to the quashing of an application. When doing the Cost Benefit Analysis, please don't forget to add in JR and Ombudsman, as wel as the savings from not printing, distributing and filing all those recycled trees. Phill Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:59:44 BST

Stroud merged our DM and BC admin teams in 2005 as part of an equal pay review. Initial teething issues as staff argued over how important THEIR bit was. But all fine and dandy now. Its supprising how the merger has improved efficiencies and made both teams aware of the development team approach. Here, the Principal Business Support Officer is a member of my Management Team, and has the right to challenge her DM, BC or Planning Strategy collegues. The Admin now works for the authority's good and not the planners ot inspectors. The document management system also helps to maintain administrative discipline as every document into the service is scanned, be it a planning or B Regs application. The automation available in IDox-Uniform also hels to create a sister case without all the bother of double entry. Huge sucess, embrace it Phill Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:51:07 BST

Rebecca, we merged our Planning and Building Control technical teams in April 2008. The implementation of the new structure has been successful and certainly timely, considering the financial pressures on service areas since. If you wish to discuss further, please feel free to contact me. Becki. Submitted by: Rebecca Patten

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:36:01 BST

Thanks to everyone who has responded. I may be getting in touch with one or two of you who have left messages to do so. Rebecca Submitted by: rebecca stenson-faulkner

Re: Financial Appraisal of Planning Applications

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:19:10 BST

We are private-sector consultants working for both developers and local authorities in demonstrating the ability (or otherwise) of proposed developments to meet required policy contributions. We therefore appraise site-specific schemes rather than area-wide viability studies for policy formulation. In response to Matthews key questions: -- Who -- I would have thought that this is entirely at the discretion of the authority involved. However if you are looking for site-specific economic viability studies, you will need a practitioner who understands the entire development process, and not just the economics surrounding the provision of affordable housing. What -- every economic viability study the we undertake accounts for all of the policy contributions required by the relevant local authority, and therefore the results are equally applicable to housing schemes as they are to industrial development. For instance if a new office scheme requires significant infrastructure investment to allow access, then that is accounted for in the viability assessment, and it can clearly be shown whether or not the proposals are capable of supporting any other policy contributions. This is a big topic and I would be happy to discuss it further, either here or in a separate thread. How Much -- it is impossible to judge how long it will take to complete a viability appraisal as so much depends on all of the information being made available by the developer at an early stage. The last Independent Assessment that we carried out for a local authority was based upon comprehensive and well presented evidence by the developer, but still resulted in our report being in excess of 100 pages. The cost was 4,000. I doubt very much whether any appraisal and assessment report can be completed for less than 3000. In most cases the developer is required to pay for this but I understand that this position needs to be supported by adopted policy. We have been involved in viability studies for a number of years, and have recently developed a new range of services to help local authorities deal with this particular issue. The document attached gives more detail. I would be happy to provide more specific information if required. adam@intali.com Submitted by: Adam Burdett

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:41:00 BST

Hi Rebecca, The two Admin team's at Gloucester merged successfully approx. march 2009. If you want to discuss any issues please give me a call on 01452 396013. Caroline Submitted by: Caroline Troughton

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:32:58 BST

Morning Rebecca - the two admin team's at Sunderland merged a few weeks ago. Our enforcement team has also moved into the space left in BC to work more closely on development management. I'll copy our Office Manager in to see if she has any words of wisdom. Dave Submitted by: Dave Evans

Re: Rural Exception Sites Policy

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:06:52 BST

PPS3 indicates that RES Sites Policy can be used specifically for affordable housing in small rural communities which are designated for enfranchisement and right to aquire purposes under the Housing Act 1996. This means that the housing built on such sites can be allocated for local people and retained in perpetuity. If sites are permitted that are not adjacent or closely related to the designated settlements the question is whether such sites can be retained in perpetuity? If not I would question whether a policy is in accordance with the original intentions of PPS3. However whether such an approach is justified/legal given, for example the level of need is another matter. Submitted by: Paul Newdick

Re: Fast Track Planning applications charging

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:36:01 BST

I have previously looked at fast track processing for Land Charges for a client, there are lots of items for consideration in offering premium and standard services in a regulatory application environment, below are a couple of the top of my head. You will note that some of these need the councillors to buy in to this, and sign off. Issues to consider; 1. Are there legal barriers to favouring one application over another in terms of turn around, 2. The potential for a perception to develop that Fee payers are receiving benefits over and above merely getting their applications processed quicker 3. Unless the entire process is wholly contained within the sponsoring department, the supporting service providers will need to be brought in to supporting the scheme 4. Price-Placing. If the premium and non-premium services are roughly the same, then the customers will not pay a premium. 5. The potential for a perception to develop that non-premium applications are being deliberately held on to, in order to justify, and/or push the premium service 6. Etc. I would recomend that if this is a serious consideration, you need to round up a Business Analyst and have a proper feasibility study done, covering all the options, barriers and risks, wirth a good Cost-Risk-Benefit analysis before progressing. Submitted by: Ian Parmenter

Re: Rural Exception Sites Policy

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:12:19 BST

I am under the impression that shropshire council has a policy that permits exception schemes on sites immediately adjoining urban area boundaries. The following is an extract from their existing 'Interim Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing' "100% affordable housing may be permitted on exceptions sites surrounding Shrewsbury and Shropshire s larger market towns, and settlements of greater than 3,000 population3, provided that they do not prejudice the Shropshire LDF s role in identifying new directions for growth for these settlements" (Shropshire Council July 2009 http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/planning.nsf/viewAttachments/EWET-7ZWCGE/$file/adopted-ipg-on-affordable-housing.pdf ). I think that a similar approach was also taken by the previous Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council when interpreting the local plan exception policy. Hope I have understood your query correctly and that this is of some help. Submitted by: Emma Pierce-Jenkins

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:57:59 BST

Have a chat with Stevenage, they had a merged DC & BC admin team back in '05. Submitted by: Ian Parmenter

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:50:04 BST

Sorry profile not bringing through Authority Paul Boucher Business & Information Services Manager Environment & Planning Department Cambridge City Council Submitted by: Paul Boucher

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:45:46 BST

Rebecca As part of transferring customer activities into our Customer Service Centre - Corporate Customer Acces Strategy, we have restructured our back office services as part of the strategy and to payback the investement in the CSC and new technology. From April 2010 we brought together adminstraive/business support functions from DC, BC (including Land Charges aspects) and Trees into a centralised team, with the CSC providing the face to face, telephone, email front line service for planning services. We are operating with reduced workforce supported by some temporary funded posts whislt we work through a transition perod and carry out training. Happy for you to give me a call next week. Paul Submitted by: Paul Boucher

Re: Planning and Building control admin merger

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:44:40 BST

Did this some years ago at a previous authority. Took the route of each of the support team having an area of expertise and a secondary and then tertiary area of competence. The BC team had no will to see it succeed, feeling that they were somehow losing some resources, notwithstanding that the support team was able to provide cover during periods of absence of the main support officer. Integrated the receipt and input of applications first, which then muddied the time "their" support officer needed to spend on BC duties, freeing up some time for other things. Main thing is to have the will for it to work, from the top and right down to grass roots, and, of course, the support of the support team members as well. Submitted by: Dean Baker

Planning and Building control admin merger

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:10:26 BST

Im trying to find an authority who has merged Building Control and Planning Admin Support Services and how they have dealt with the merger. Submitted by: rebecca stenson-faulkner

Rural Exception Sites Policy

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:53:41 BST

In discussion with my local authority they are considering affordable housing applications outside the framework boundary of urban areas (population of around 12,000 and which the development plan refers to as an Urban Area) within the context of their rural exception policy. The Policy states As an exception to normal planning policies small affordable housing developments will be permitted within and adjoining the villages in the District provided that: i) There is a demonstrable local need for affordable housing which cannot otherwise be met; and ii) The scheme must be capable of implementation and proper management to ensure that the benefits of the provision of affordable housing to meet local needs will be held in perpetuity. This seems inconsistent with PPS3 which states the rural exception site policy enables the authority to allocate or release small sites within and adjoining existing small rural communities, which may be subject to policies of restraint. Does anyone know of either relevant appeal cases or where the policy has been interpreted as a district wide? Submitted by: David Stirling

Re: 1APP Householder application form

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:09:49 BST

Perhaps I'm missing something. At stroud we would not allow an applicant to use the householder form for a new dwelling house. We would accept an application for a flat on a householder though. Submitted by: Philip Skill

1APP Householder application form

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:42:17 BST

What approach do other LPAs take to validation of applications which are either: single dwellinghouse applications (which would qualify to be a householder application) made on a full planning form? applications for amendments to a flat, which are made on Householder form? We currently make either of these Invalid, but have been asked whether we can look at improving our customers friendliness and validating with the incorrect form as long as all other requirements have been fulfilled. Any thoughts on this? Submitted by: Vincent Murray

Re: Using the Duty of wellbeing to justify affordable housing on the greenbelt

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:48:57 BST

To clarify, LAs don't have a general Duty of well-being; it's a power - the duty side of that is the Sustainable Community Strategy, to which exercise of the power, and indeed the LDF, should have regard. The well-being power guidance is at - http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1148897.pdf . I suspect the answer that Eager is after is at para 93. As ever, take your own legal advice on individual uses of the power. Paul Submitted by: Paul Whittlesea

Re: Fast Track Planning applications charging

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:30:22 BST

I am not sure that they have started yet - However - London Borough of Barnet are definitiely going to introduce fast tracking. Submitted by: Gilian Macinnes

Using the Duty of wellbeing to justify affordable housing on the greenbelt

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 16:20:31 BST

Anyone care to help out this eager planner: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/thread-maint.do?topicId=372423 ta. John. Submitted by: John Chantler

Solent Design Awards

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:01:52 BST

The Solent Centre for Architecture + Design (SCA+D) is launching a new Design Award scheme for buildings or places of the highest design standards and which achieve a positive impact on their surrounding areas. It s part of a programme to stimulate high class design in the built environment across South Hampshire. We all know about The Stirling Prize, says Paul Grover, head of SCA+D, but our awards aren t just looking for the most stunning or iconic design; we re looking for design which creates a BETTER place to live, work and play. As this is the inaugural year of what is hoped will become a biennial award scheme, any building or development completed after April 1st 2005 can be entered and these can be nominated by anyone: architects, contractors, clients, local authorities or members of the public. Full details can be found at www.solentdesignawards.org.uk and submissions must be received by 5.00 pm on 20th August 2010. The Awards are sponsored by the Quality Places Group of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH). The winners could be anything from an office block, house or commercial building, a school or leisure centre, a civic building, social housing, public open space or a new park, says Paul Grover. What is important is that they show design at its best adding real value to the place in which they sit. The judging panel is just being finalised and will include top professionals from the built environment sector. There will be a number of winners which display that special something, including an overall winner, an award for the most sustainable scheme, and a special award for the project which achieves the best impact which will be chosen by a poll of the community. As Paul Grover says: New buildings and places can cause a great deal of controversy; sometimes it may be the design, or lack of it, which causes concern. We want to find the buildings and places, whose design is so good, that it really creates a sense of place to their surrounding area. Submitted by: Sandi Turner

Re: Financial Appraisal of Planning Applications

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:20:23 BST

Julian, agree would be nice to see more responses on this! If you want email alerts for this forum you can manage them here: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/reg/user-account.do?aspect=Forum&mode=u (doesn't look like you are set up for them at the moment) Best, John. Submitted by: John Chantler

Re: Financial Appraisal of Planning Applications

Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:14:47 BST

Matthew I am surprised you've not had any public responses to your important posting, perhaps most people (like me) did not get an email alert for this - PAS please note! The approach of our housing viability study consultants (Three Dragons) is to leave us with an electronic toolkit to use with planning applications after some training which we are about to have. So I can't yet say how well this works! But there will be plenty of people out there that know... I understand there is a similar toolkit on the HCA website which is freely available. As you say though housing viability is just the start. Submitted by: Julian Jackson

S106 agreement

Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:12:35 BST

Has anyone any knowledge of refusal of planning authority to have an aplication for lifting of an S106 agreement restricting type of goods to be sold in a large retail outlet, and on what grounds the application was refused? Submitted by: Kenneth Meredith

Re: Insisting on native species in planting/ landscaping schemes

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:57:07 BST

Many thanks guys. I should clarify that I am not thinking about proposing any intervention like this for any development in particular, I have a member of the public who thinks the planning system has more control and power over human activity than is true in reality. I am framing an argument that such action is unreasonable and the grounds suggested are what I had in mind too. So thank you for confirming my suspicions. Michael - I think your last point is very interesting and might have worked, particularly as the site my complainant has in mind is next to a SSSI. That might be our only degree of influence - but it might be a workable compromise. Submitted by: Matthew Winslow

Fast Track Planning applications charging

Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:51:03 BST

Is any one aware of a Council operating a Fast Track planning service for which an additional fee is charged? Submitted by: Valerie Jacobi

Re: Waste to energy through anaerobic digestion and biogas

Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:23:31 BST

I have considerable experience of AD planning applications for managing farm waste primarily, sometimes with imported material (i.e 'waste'). I have 3 times been a speaker at seminars on this topic, and am in close communication with a number of practioners and interested parties. I would be very interested to participate in debate on AD as a way forward for waste management. Kind regards, Debby Klein, MA, MRTPI Submitted by: Deborah Klein

Online payments for applications

Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:36:25 BST

Our online payment facility for Planning portal applications needs changing. However, i am just wondering how many payments for applications other authorities recieve per month and who your payment engine provider is? Many thanks Lucy Submitted by: Lucy Blyth

Waste to energy through anaerobic digestion and biogas

Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:14:40 BST

Hi, I'm with the Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association (ADBA). The UK government has committed to a huge increase in waste to energy through anaerobic digestion (AD) - using agricultural, water, retail and domestic waste to convert to gas that can be injected into the national grid. We're interested in hearing from planners and waste managers about their thoughts, expectations and understanding of anaerobic digestion as a way of converting waste to energy. Specifically, what experiences do people have of planning applications for AD plants; community engagement around the process; and the interest/viability of AD for different LAs facing different energy, development and infrastructure challenges. Also, ADBA is hosting the UK's first trade show dedicated solely to AD and biogas on 7-8 July in NEC, Birmingham. There will be free workshops and seminars on planning and permitting; policy updates; building and operating AD plants; procurement; collection of and pre-treatment of waste (feedstocks); and training and safety. We hope to see some of you there and build on the knowledge in the local authority sector about anaerobic digestion and biogas. Submitted by: Annika Herter

Re: Insisting on native species in planting/ landscaping schemes

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:45:08 BST

Matthew ... have just had a thought! You could possibly frame a negatively worded condition to prevent a particulary invasive species such as ponticum being planted? That would be more reasonable and easier to enforce. Mike Submitted by: Michael Hyde

Re: Insisting on native species in planting/ landscaping schemes

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:32:49 BST

Totally unreasonable and as Ian has said completely unenforceable. My feeling has always been that whilst a scheme of landscaping for a domestic garden can control boundary features and specimin trees, to seek to control the individual plants in the flowerbeds is taking it too far! Submitted by: Michael Hyde

Re: Payments that are made by cheque ceasing - Development Control and Building Regulations

Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:06:27 BST

The item that put this on everyone's radar was the announcement by the UK Payments council back in December. The Payments Council Board has agreed to set a target date of 31st October 2018 to close the central cheque clearing. Over the next nine years the Payments Council will work to ensure that where alternatives already exist they are promoted and explained; and where innovation and new options are required, they are put in place. (www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/payments_plan/-/page/856/) The other driver is that cheques are expensive to process (this is not just the bank charge, but all the manual handling and auditing costs) I have talked to agents in the past when deploying e-planning systems, and they ranged from nuetral to positive about card payments, but I should note that this was from agents who turned up to be briefed about new electronic facilities, and hence may not be a truly representative sample. Submitted by: Ian Parmenter

Re: Insisting on native species in planting/ landscaping schemes

Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:54:00 BST

I'm not sure about unreasonable but the first thought I had is how would/could you enforce such an insistance? Ian Submitted by: Ian Reekie

Insisting on native species in planting/ landscaping schemes

Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:37:58 BST

Is it unreasonable to insist that domestic landscaping (within garden space predominantly) is formed from native species only, particularly when there are sizeable and important biodiversity reserves in the vicinty? Submitted by: Matthew Winslow

Re: Fees for discharge of conditions

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 14:50:35 BST

Our Authority, like many, requires agents/applicants to formally discharge conditions before development commences, particularly precedent conditions . Whilst in most cases this is possible, some agents are writing to us specifically stating that they want to request approval of details reserved by planning conditions which does not require a fee as set out in the SI. They then state they will seek confirmation of discharge of conditions once work is completed. This approach creates a problem: - condition precedents are often not formally discharged prior to commencement. Aside from the enforcement provisions that are open to us, we wondered if other authorities had experienced similar difficulties and what regimes they had put in place to stop this approach. Submitted by: Jennifer Rehman

Payments that are made by cheque ceasing - Development Control and Building Regulations

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:50:42 BST

A suggestion has been put forward within my Authority about the possibility of payments that are made by cheque ceasing, including planning and building regulation applications. I was wondering from a planning and building regulations point of view if any Authorities have ceased accepting cheque payments and if so what kind of reaction service areas received from the public/agents?. Thanks. Submitted by: Lee Robinson

Re: C4 HMO's - What constitutes a change in character?

Fri, 28 May 2010 11:05:23 BST

You say that the property has 4 students in already - if this was so as at April 6th 2010, its authorised use would appear to already be that of a C4 small hmo. An extension to this existing use would not ordinarily effect a material change of use. On another point, I realise that the application has been submitted, but does the s/s rx require pp or might it be PD? Submitted by: Carl Patrick

Re: C4 HMO's - What constitutes a change in character?

Thu, 27 May 2010 14:00:57 BST

Yes. s.s. rear extension to existing property to form a HMO (Class C4). Higher of the fees payable = 335 Submitted by: Martin Levick

C4 HMO's - What constitutes a change in character?

Thu, 27 May 2010 13:54:56 BST

I have an application for a single storey rear extension to a dwelling which has 4 students in already. The extension would provide a new bedroom for a 5th student. Does the introduction of the 5th bedroom begin a new planning chapter and change in character and therefore is a change of use to C4 required? Submitted by: Gemma Edison

Re: Extending time limits on outline applications

Tue, 25 May 2010 17:08:57 BST

Extending the time limit grants a new permission according to paras. 1-3 in CLG guidance November 2009 "Greater flexibility for planning permissions" . Logically therefore they would have to submit reserve matters again under the new outline that is granted as they will not be implementing the original outline but a new permission. However para. 22, as you indicate, says the opposite which suggests the original permission is extended. It is not clear if CLG is advocating the part implementation of two separate permissions, or simply being pragmatic in the interests of "flexibility", and taking a "positive and constructive approach". It would be interesting to see if the guidance stands up in law as it seems to contradict itself. The same diffculties apply to variation of condition permissions under s73 since a new permission is also created as established by the courts.. Submitted by: David Breeze

Re: Pre Application Community Forums

Tue, 25 May 2010 16:04:04 BST

Cambridge City Council have been running a pre application forum for some time,although I understand it hasn't been used all that often. Simon Payne,Director of Plannng,should be able to advise you . Submitted by: Patrick Reid

Re: Retail Sequential Test & Viability

Tue, 25 May 2010 14:54:26 BST

We have certainly had the "goldilocks approach" stated by the deep discount stores who find that "normal" retail premises don't suit their stack it high sell it cheap approach and have tried to argue this point. It didn't wash with either us or our retail consultants but we didn't get the chance to take this through appeal as our Members overturned the refusal recommendation! I cannot see that lack of ability to afford is a reasonable argument and accepting this for retail could leave you with a dangerous precedent Submitted by: Jean Marshall

Re: Pre Application Community Forums

Tue, 25 May 2010 10:49:24 BST

Development Consultation Forums were introduced at Havant Borough Council some time ago. They work very well, and several amendments have been made to plans before they go to the application stage. However, this is purely a voluntary thing and developers do not have to do a presentation, although they are encouraged to do so. I would suggest that you contact the Planning Department at Havant, or the Portfolio holder, Councillor David Guest. Submitted by: Gerald Shimbart

Re: Restricting 'buy to let' of affordable properties

Tue, 25 May 2010 09:53:29 BST

My understanding is that when the "deal" is first struck between the public authority and the partner (Housing Association?), that strict criteria are attached to occupancy from the word go - this should not even be a risk or am I being naive? - I have to confess I've not heard of this happening as most of the schemes I am aware of are either rented or part-ownership. Rusty Gurnard Parish Clerk (Isle of Wight) Submitted by: Rusty Adams

Re: S106

Tue, 25 May 2010 09:01:23 BST

Interesting ... I know someone who is in the process of taking enforcement action against her own council! The action relates to an unauthorised advertisement on a vehicle parked on the highway. The notice is being served by planning on the council as roads authority. Submitted by: Michael Hyde

Re: S106

Mon, 24 May 2010 07:28:57 BST

I had always understood that councils are one legal entity and cannot have an agreement with themselves, so an s106 is not possible. Similarly, a council can't take enforcement action against itself - you can't sue your self, and I can't see that a conditon would be valid. On the assumption that the development site is in the councils ownership, I would think that something like an internal memorandum of understanding signed by the relevant chief officer would suffice. Submitted by: Bryan Cadman

Re: Scanning planning documents

Fri, 21 May 2010 15:13:38 BST

It is usually best if you are to do this in-house to get a decent document management system. We do have a couple of these available here: http://www.pearl-repro.co.uk Normally if you have a backlog of documents it might be best to get that out of the way first as it helps you to have these in electronic format while saving on space. It might be worth putting a member of staff or 2 on there or let us know if you need a quote on that to see what works out cheaper for you. http://www.pearl-scan.co.uk Submitted by: Craig Cartwright

S106

Fri, 21 May 2010 12:32:26 BST

Dear All, One of my clients is a Local Planning Authority (LPA) which is at the same time the Determining Authority of our outline planning application. I am wondering how planning contributions can be secured in this instance. a) Can the LPA sign a S106 agreement with itself? b) Who would enforce a Unilateral Undertaking given that the applicant and the authority are the same? c) Is there a condition that can be safely imposed to e.g. pass the contribution on to the developer (our client is unlikely to build the scheme but will rather sell it on to a developer). I would be grateful for any advice. Kind regards, Stefanie Submitted by: Stefanie Goedecke

Re: Pre Application Community Forums

Wed, 19 May 2010 08:40:41 BST

We don t do this, and have been bitten hard by groups who are aggrieved at pre app presentations to councillors as advocated by PAS in their probity literature. We had to allow a counter presentation on a New Service Station on M5. We would be interested in any pilot. Phill Head of Planning Stroud District Council 01453 754345 Submitted by: Philip Skill

Pre Application Community Forums

Wed, 19 May 2010 00:48:32 BST

A colleague from an authority we (PAS) are supporting has asked me: The in-coming administration are keen to introduce Pre-application Community Forums. We know that Tunbridge Wells do this and I wondered if you knew of any other authorities that do. It would be useful to know how they work and get some views on their effectiveness. Can anyone out there help with this? Submitted by: martin hutchings

Re: Extending time limits on outline applications

Mon, 17 May 2010 15:55:12 BST

Can't answer your specific question... but be careful if there is a S106, as it will refer to implementation of the original permission. If you change the permision, the S106 will be unenforceable unless you gat them to sign a dead of variation. Phill Submitted by: Philip Skill

Extending time limits on outline applications

Mon, 17 May 2010 15:46:50 BST

The Government's guidance document on Greater Flexibility on Planning Permissions confirms that LPAs can extend the time limits for outline permissions (para 21). Para 22 states that the related reserved matters can be "referred to in the new decision notice." We have a case where outline permission has been granted and reserved matters have been approved. The applicant now wishes to extend the time limit to implement the permission. Any thoughts on how best to do this? Has anyone approved an extension of time for outline permissions? Should we effectively reissue the outline approval with an informative confirming that the reserved matters previously approved remain acceptable? Submitted by: Hamish Walke

Re: Portal Planning Applications

Tue, 11 May 2010 15:48:06 BST

We now get over 50% of our applications through the Portal and printing costs are rising with it! As well as a hardcopy set for the officers, we are also still required to print off a set for the parish councils who currently don't have electronic facilities in their halls etc. Until we move further forward with investment in larger PC screens and possible portable pc tablets officers can use for viewing plans on site visits, we remain at this half way point in implementing E2E. Once budgets allow, we will complete the change. Submitted by: John Theobald

Retail Sequential Test & Viability

Mon, 10 May 2010 15:54:42 BST

I was wondering if anybody had any recent experience of dealing with applications where the applicant is basically rejecting units because they can't afford them. This is not to say that they aren't viable for the proposed use (i.e. A1) but that they aren't viable for the proposed user (i.e. a retailer with a certain 'business model' that only has a low turnover ratio). It seems to me that retail proposals, and their justification, are now based not on the use of the land but the particular operator and their business model. With the same proposal, we are getting the 'goldilocks' approach to the sequential test.... "this ones too small", "this ones too big"... "this ones just right"... for our business model. I'm really struggling to assess how far these arguments should be accepted. Any advice? Submitted by: Steven Lee

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Tue, 04 May 2010 11:52:04 BST

CLG response: "As you are aware we cannot offer an interpretation of the law as that is ultimately for the courts. However our informal view is that the permitted development rights under Part 1 of the GPDO will apply to dwelling houses which fall within the C4 HMO use class except where they are specifically excluded by the 'definition' of dwelling house contained in the GPDO i.e. flats. With regards to HMOs which are considered sui generis the position in respect of permitted development rights under Part 1 of the GPDO has not been affected by the recent legislation." Submitted by: Oliver Taylor

'Temporary' approval on a prior notice agricultural building?

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:46:44 BST

We recently went through the standard prior notice proceedure for a clients livestock building. It conformed to all of the requirements of the gpdo and details regarding siting, design and appearance were supplied. The approval was subsequently given, but as a temporary consent. The decision notice citedthe lack of cattle or sheep on site at the time of the notification, (as the client wanted facilities in place prior to bringing them onto the holding) and stated that the LPA wanted to monitor the use of the building. The decision notice also suggested that after the two year consent was over the livestock should be housed elsewhere on the holding in anotherbuilding, already with a designated use. Our understanding is either that something is Permitted Development or it is not and that such conditions go beyond the powers held by teh LPA in these instances. Any thoughts? Submitted by: john gower

Re: Scanning planning documents

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 22:27:30 BST

Having deployed a number of planning and other document management systems, I can say that the choice between in-house and external scan and index is not a clear cut one size fits all choice. If you go the outsourced route, then confirming and contractually binding the scanning shop as BIP0008 compliant moves a lot of risk and process management overhead over to the external company, but at a cost. The obvious cost is monetary, but the other cost is time, as you could be in receipt of the application for 24hrs prior to the documents being available within your EDMS. There are a lot of outfits that specialise in scanning, and do this for financial institutions and legal firms, so quality and economies of scale are available. From personal experience of using outside document imaging specialists, the weak point is usually the courier service (I had to change courier service providers in several client sites, as the couriers where failing to meet the required performance, e.g. not turning up to collect, damaging the original documents, etc.) If you outsource, and plan to use legal admissibility, remember you will need to budget to carry out and document periodical audits, to confirm they are complying with the required standards. If you go in-house, you gain a higher degree of control, and potentially faster turnaround, but you are exchanging the variable cost of a service provider, for a fixed cost employee, and semi-fixed costs for maintenance of the equipment. (which gets damaged by paper clips, staples, etc.) If you have in-house scan, then you need to have the relevant equipment, processes and training, including a backup plan for when the equipment breaks, staff go sick, etc. The general rule of thumb is that if you have enough work, it can work out cost beneficial to scan in house, if you have smaller quantities/irregular volumes, outsourced is usually better. One caveat is the average DC & BC departments tend to have shortages of skilled and experienced staff, so diverting those critical resources to a relatively boring job, that also requires attention to detail, can be inefficient and potentially sub-optimal for staff retention. Submitted by: Ian Parmenter

Re: Scanning planning documents

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:25:32 BST

i've attached our overview document, which explains our approach to using electronic files, and the role various staff play in making it work. for info, a Green File, is our trem for a Paper File. Submitted by: Mark Wood

Re: Portal Planning Applications

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:01:02 BST

I agree with Mark. Having two systems is a nightmare when it comes to ombudsmans complaints. The OFFICIAL file must be the scanned/online file, as this is the one the public see, and if you use online consultation, your consultees. Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Scanning planning documents

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:52:42 BST

All our planning documents are scanned into IDOX by our corporate document management centre but we are about to start a "Lean Systems" review which (inter alia) will look at whether the scanning process is carried out within planning which should help minimise classification errors and assist timely display of documents on the website.For information, a recent complainant has asked about document retention policy in relation to paper consultation responses made on planning applications and considers these should be logged on receipt and an audit carried out to ensure received paper mail all gets into the electronic casefile. before it is destroyed. Our retained planning files only contain forms and plans at present with all other documents held electronically only, with web display following PARSOL guidance and not showing third party representations once a decision has been taken on the application. Any views as to whether scanning carried out within the planning unit is beneficial as opposed to outside the dept. would be useful. Submitted by: John Edwards

Re: Portal Planning Applications

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:46:26 BST

i couldn't agree with Ian more, you either have to use paper or electronic case files, any kind of hybrid system is just counter-productive. given the need to have an online public register and the increasing number of portal submission and the general direction (this) central government is going; then the electronic must be the logical choice. Submitted by: Mark Wood

Re: Scanning planning documents

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:32:49 BST

Bryan, i would recommend doing it in house and if also for your own support staff to do it (rather than employ people just to scan / or use a corporate scanning team). This will give you the control and quality you need, its also allows you to ensure that information is scanned in a timly manner. we started with our own scanning team, but we have gradually moved the work back into the support function. if you want more details of how and why drop me an email Submitted by: Mark Wood

Re: Scanning planning documents

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:44:41 BST

Bryan, At Solihull we have a very simple system that currently sits outside of any EDRMS system. We scan in house and publish using FTP to an internet folder. We then had out ICT team build a web application that watches this folder. When ever someone looks at the basic page for an application, whether by address or application number, a 'View Documents' link is provided. This opens op a list of documents associated to the application. Prior to FTP'ing the documents, the files are redacted using Acrobat Prof. 9 and then run through the Adobe Live Cycle server which was provided by the Planning Portal. This is to add measuring & commenting tools. The downside is that we have to keep the paper copies as we cannot use the electronic versions as evidence. Any future system should include the ability to automatically pull certain documents from the Internet at relevant stages of the applications life as well as scanning documents direct in to a file plan whilst conforming to BIP 0008 Legal Admissibility standards. This should cover the basics and allow a true electronic file of the application to be help as well as the destruction of the majority of paper documents as early as possible. You may have an Information Governance Manager who can help with all of this. You should also ensure that your documents are no bigger than 5MB in size each and that each plan has its own .pdf file. This aids e-consultation and the Planning Portal can provide more information on this. Hope this is of use, its only just the tip really. Regards, Andy Byron. Solihull MBC. Submitted by: Andy Byron

Scanning planning documents

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:27:47 BST

We are about to review how we scan and index planning applications and publish them on the web. Currently we outsource this service and I would be interested to see if other LPAs have done a similar exercise which compares doing it in house, either within planning departments or corporately, to outsourcing, and whether some councils have combined their scanning needs with their near neighbours. Submitted by: Bryan Cadman

Restricting 'buy to let' of affordable properties

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:19:28 BST

I have received a query from a Councillor regarding the possibility of placing restrictions upon low cost affordable housing in order to prevent it from entering the buy to let market. The concern is that affordable properties are purchased and let and are therefore no longer available for people with an affordable housing need who would like to buy. My research has shown that it is difficult to prevent stair casing and ensure the property remains owner occupied and low cost in perpetuity, unless the property is owned by a local authority. Does anyone know whether it is possible to place this type of restriction upon properties and if it is, how this is achieved? Submitted by: Sarah Fisher

Re: Portal Planning Applications

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:09:21 BST

Having deployed a number of electronic planning systems, ranging in technical complexity, I can only advise that if you stick to traditional paper based practices and have an electronic "bolt on", you are going to be doing a LOT of printing (est. about a mile a year of A0 for 1600 apps in a unitary). If you implement full end-to-end electronic planning, provide a proper electronic working environment (i.e. at least two 4:3 ratio 19" TFT monitors per officer), and train the staff to use the facilities, then you should save a lot of printing, plus all the time chasing the missing paper, and trying to work out if the paper and electronic versions of the file tie up. The working environment studies tend to be specific based on how the teams are organised and work split down, so I one size fits all approach doesn't quite work, but there are many common points between different authorities. Submitted by: Ian Parmenter

Re: Date stamping of planning application details

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 02:42:59 BST

How you process the application is something the local Head of DC should make the call on, as how the paper and electronic applications are handled and recorded should be set by how you plan to use them if a legal dispute arises. (i.e. are you planning on using paper only files in court or electronic files, or a mix dependant on whether they arrived on paper, or where born electronic) For departments set up for End-to-End electronic planning you can usually rely on the file create and modify data that is automatically created on most systems, and the associated application based audit. Your IT department should be able to help if you are having difficulties seeing this information. If you have any electronic documents that you are particularly nervous about, then you can use a Digital Notary Service, and e-mail back the signed and time stamped documents to the sender explaining these are the ones you are using (your e-mail being archived). If you are relying on the system timestamps, then you need to have a chat with your IT team, to make sure that the time on the server is synchronised with one of the recognised time clocks. This is done using Network Time Protocol (NTP). Personally I can think of many ways that the old received time stamp on the paper could be challenged if somebody was so minded, so I don t perceive an advantage to having it, IF, everything is going into the computer systems as soon as it arrives (End-to-End Electronic Planning). If you have a lag between paper receipt and scanning, then you still need to keep stamping the documents to work out the time-to-scan lag, and answer any dispute over when a document arrived. (note documents e-mailed in should be auto-archived by your IT department) In the authorities where I have deployed electronic planning or other regulatory systems, this is something that was covered in the project documentation under the heading of "Legal Admissibility". The relevant standard is called BIP 0008:2008 "Evidential Weight and Legal Admissibility of Information Stored Electronically" Submitted by: Ian Parmenter

Re: Getting access to blogs and social media

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 01:27:19 BST

Due to all the hackers and crimeware out on the internet these days, the normal network team has to set up the rules to exclude/block anything it has not been specifically told to include. Hence the same advice applies, as hosting and participating are two sides of the same coin for the usual mechanisms that police the activity on a corporate network. (for example if you are trying to use instant messaging it see s that traffic type trying to move, and moves to block it, unless it has been told otherwise) Forum type boards (e.g. PAS), accessed using a browser, are normally a permitted traffic type , but could be blocked by rules governing the web address it is trying to get to. In this case, you should just need to tell the network team (via the appropriate methods) what it is and who needs it, possibly with a why and a sign off , dependant on local policies. Blocked addresses are usually a sub 5 minute job for the network engineer, although you could have to wait for 24 hours or more if your organisation has outsourced it s network management. It should be noted that some security systems scan and block based on the contents of what is in the messages being passed. For example an e-mail complaining about the erection next door gets blocked as spam, or it detects a photograph (enforcement evidence) being moved, or a strange file extension like .DWG that it doesn t know about (it s AutoCAD by the way). And yes I have had long conversations on all the above examples on behalf of DC & Licensing officers with various local authority IT teams. Hence if it a web based service you are planning on using on a regular basis, or need to access to get regulatory information, it pays to tell IT and get the social media site logged as a supported application/system. This should also ensure it gets covered in the disaster recovery plans. (for example the WDF website has to be accessed every quarter by Waste Disposal Authorities, your office being burnt down is not listed as an exemption in the legislation) When you tell your network team about the site(s) you need, remember to tell them about any type of files or attachments you may need to send or receive, so that these are permitted through any content blocking system. If the site(s) are normal for all officers in a team, then ask to have it included in the normal user set up, that way you do not have to request them every time somebody joins the team. Most of the above should be included in the presentation IT gives on the staff induction course, when they explain about the corporate IT security policies, why you have them, and how they work. Submitted by: Ian Parmenter

Re: Getting access to blogs and social media

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:36:07 BST

Hi Ian, I guess I was looking at how people were going about accessing other people's blogs/forums/etc rather than setting up their own. My post was prompted by some folks saying they couldn't access our blog. It is quite common for IT departments to block a range of sites. ''Social media" sites are often caught in this regardless of whether they are work-related or not... We've had the situation here at the IDeA where certain sites are blocked, but then following a request to IT we have been given access - just wanted to feel out what other folks have experienced. John Submitted by: John Chantler

Re: public viewing of Discharge of Conditions applications

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:23:46 BST

Phill, i agree, i think they need to be online, they are just as much a matter of public interest as the actual decisions. as we use the Off The Shelf version of Public Access from IDOX i do still have the problem that the consultation button is present, which is just too tempting for people to not use. Thanks Submitted by: Mark Wood

Re: Getting access to blogs and social media

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:16:38 BST

The way the question has been phrased is likely to lead to your "IT Bods" getting a case of the frights, and saying no in automatic response. (this is stand risk management approach in most technical areas) Having seen both sides of the fence, I can understand some of the common frustrations. Line departments blame IT for being obstructive and unresponsive, IT blames the line departments for coming up with half baked ideas, and not telling them until the day before they re needed. (e.g. oh, it s just pushing a few buttons nameless head of directorate on moving a 400 user system that required new BT landlines, giving roughly 9 weeks notice. BT s lead time for a new line is 90 days) If there is a business case for social media (or anything else), the most productive approach is to collate your thoughts on a sheet of A4, and then have a chat with your local IT representative about what you want to achieve, and how you would measure success. DO NOT try telling them the technology and configuration you want (this will go down about as well as a junior programmer telling the head of DC which planning apps to approve) Your best bet for getting a social media solution approved and implemented (and yes that is two different things), is to talk to other areas that have a similar need, and go to IT as a group. Even if your local IT account manager is on board, he can better sell/justify a solution for the Environmental Health and Transport Directorate, than he can a system for a couple of planning officers. If your council has a dedicate web team, have a chat with them, as they tend to accumulate information on who is after what, and how it fits within the IT infrastructure. The issues you are likely to run into with social media relate to the following; 1. Network Security - there are many ways to implement new systems, many of them allow hackers backdoors into your social service, etc. data. Doing the architecture right is not easy, and may require lateral thinking (e.g. an external host). Since the beginning of the month security breaches put the council in the firing line for 500k fines from the ICO. 2. Network Architecture After finding a secure way to do the job, the network team have to figure out how to put the changes in, without compromising any existing service. Again this complex work , and it will be prioritised based on your business case against all the other ways of using the network engineer s time (e.g. implementing a statutory required system for social services) 3. Legal your legal services department may have a view about officers making comments or suggestions on items that may end up served on their desk. The argument here is that only a qualified officer should have the facility, and the normal rules for supplying advice would still be in effect. If you talk to legal about this aspect first and get their OK before talking to IT, the IT managers are likely to be impressed that you have thought this through, and their question everything threshold is likely to be substantially lower. 4. Legal if you send an e-mail or letter, it is recorded and any subsequent dispute can be resolved by going to these records. Many social media solutions do not have this record everything ability built-in and switched on. Legal are likely to ask for this, and IT will need to shop around and possibly do some creative configuring, but if you have the money and resources, this will not be a show stopper. The above is slightly long winded, but it should give an insight into how these requests are looked at. Submitted by: Ian Parmenter

Re: Councils with good planning websites please

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:56:11 BST

I am currently reviewing our site and found the above all very interesting. It does seem to be very District based, both in terms of examples and respondees. Although the majority of strategy can be applied to both district and county auhtorities I was wondering if anyone could offer good examples of County sites and if there has been any further work done on this area of planning? Submitted by: Dan Cooper

Re: Minor modifications to existing approved schemes

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:54:06 BST

Have any local authorities dealt with an application under s.96A to add a condition to a planning permission listing plans, where the decision notice doesn't already contain one, with a view to then dealing with an application under s.73 to modify this condition? Any views/ best practice would be gratefully recieved. Submitted by: Karen Hillen

Re: Getting access to blogs and social media

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:38:24 BST

http://www.UrbanDesignForum.co.uk is a place for those with an interest in urban design issues to exchange advice & information directly with colleagues. Submitted by: Andy Bell

Re: Policies on Requiring New Homes to be built to Code Standards

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:46:08 BST

I've just come across an event that BRE Global are running in June to share good practice on developing policies with Code/BREEAM requirements. http://www.breeam.org/eventdetails.jsp?id=3963 The event will also cover pre-application discussions and discharging conditions on these topics. More information and guidance is on their website: http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=268 Submitted by: Helen Pineo

Financial Appraisal of Planning Applications

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:41:36 BST

Who has experience of employing consultants to appraise the economic viability of planning applications, in particular Affordable Housing requirements, but also other developer contributions, the viability of retaining sites for employment uses, etc? We have done a Economic Viability Assessment in line with PPS3 paragraph 29, and currently require 30% affordable housing on sites above a threshold of 5 units. We are finding that developers are questioning the viability of our requirements. Our Affordable Housing SPD allows lower amounts of AH but only if justified by an independent site-specific economic viability study. We also have issues with economic viability of redeveloping employment land and premises. Due to a lack of in-house expertise, we intend to appoint external consultants on a retainer contract (so that they will be working impartially within the Borough) to conduct this work on our behalf. We will also be expecting developers to fund this independent financial appraisal themselves. My key questions are - Who - If you employed specialist affordable housing economic viability consultants, have they been the same people who have conducted your SHMA or your EVA for your affordable housing policy? Or have you simply employed economic viability consultants? What - Has anyone used consultants to check the viability of other uses beyond affordable housing? For example, employment, retail, open space, other developer contributions etc. Have you also requested affordable housing negotiation / implementation advice e.g. checking s106s, etc? How much - based on your experience, what are the likely costs for retaining consultants on an annual basis? What are the likely price ranges for each appraisal? Who is charged for the work (developer/ council)? If you would like to provide any of this information confidentially, then you may contact me by email - matthewdugdale@sthelens.gov.uk Submitted by: Matthew Dugdale

Re: public viewing of Discharge of Conditions applications

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:24:42 BST

Mark: Yes we do, and notifications, and Minor Amendments. We have two parts to the weekly list, the first part is CONSULTATION, the second is NOTIFICATION. Whilst we use the IDOX doc mamangement system, we have our own front end that allows us to be more prescriptive over what text appears. see http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_application_detail.asp?AppRef=S.10/0292/DISCON We have removed the consultation button, and the key dates for consultation. It is my Council's view that the public should see the whole process, including minor amendments and discharge of conditions. Transparancy. Phill Submitted by: Philip Skill

public viewing of Discharge of Conditions applications

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:41:15 BST

quick question: does anyone publish their discharge of conditions applications on the web. if so, do you have a problem with people/members wanting to comment on them? if not, then how do you consult electronically with the statutory bodies who need to discharge some of the conditions? also, how would you notify interested parties that the conditions had been discharged? Submitted by: Mark Wood

Re: Date stamping of planning application details

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:33:42 BST

We at stroud avoid date stamping any information submitted. Our post process separates off paper documents to planning and we scan them on date of receipt. These are electronically tagged with audit data such as date and time, and the user ID - all of which is better than a date stamp. Portal applications are not printed and re-scanned, merely indexed to IDOX. Submitted by: Philip Skill

Date stamping of planning application details

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:24:58 BST

South Glos have historically always date stamped our application plans and documents upon receipt and if invalid, with a new date when the further information (resulting in the application becoming valid) being received. With 40% of our applications now coming in online, this date stamping approach seems out dated and fairly meaningless. My questions are: what are your current processes for date stamping application details and can anyone refer me to the current guidance/approach to date stamping? Thanks for any information Becki Patten South Gloucestershire Council Submitted by: Rebecca Patten

Re: 5 yr land supply definition

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:32:01 BST

In preparing our 2009 SHLAA and 5 year supply commentary, we included unallocated greenfield sites within our 5 year supply. However this was only on the basis that they were Suitable, Available and Achievable (as per the PPS3 definitions) and following a thorough review by our Working Group which includes a number of developers. We have however delayed the contribution that these sites will make to the supply, as they will effectively be departures from our current Development Plan (our Core Strategy is yet to be adopted). We have not yet been challenged on the point via appeal, so it comes with a health warning. With regard to Paul's comment re: a 6 year supply. The guidance for preparing NI159 - Supply of Ready to Develop Housing Sites - does state that it should be a forward look (see Annex 4 of the NI Handbook) - so the 5 year supply starts the April after the December AMR. So the December 2009 AMR should refer to a 5 year supply starting 2010/11 and ending 2014/15. Hope this helps. Submitted by: Andrew Byrne

Re: 5 yr land supply definition

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:01:48 BST

A further point on this revised advice note is that it now states the five year period should start from the April following the submission of the AMR. As the figures would be calculated on the basis of the previous April it appears that in effect a six year supply has to be calculated. If I have understood this correctly this seems unreasonable. (I think a similar issue arose when demonstrating the five year supply for HPDG purposes). Has anyone a different view? Submitted by: Paul Newdick

Re: 5 yr land supply definition

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:52:25 BST

Kim, You are correct to assume that all potential unallocated sites, regardless of status, can be included only where they meet all the test of deliverability and would make a significant contribution to the delivery of housing during the 5 year period. Submitted by: Oliver Taylor

5 yr land supply definition

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:52:17 BST

We are currently producing our 5yr land supply and looking to incorporate potential unallocated sites from our SHLAA into the 5yr report. However it appears that the latest DCLG/PINS guidance (updated 30/March/2010) on delivering 5yr land supplies have muddled the defintions. The link for the most upto date guidance is below http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/advice_for_insp/advice_produced_by_dclg.htm I believe that the previous guidance referenced that only unallocated BROWNFIELD sites which are percieved as potentially deliverable (satisfying paragraph 54 of PPS3) could be included in the 5yr land supply, however; upon recent inspection of the latest update, the reference to BROWNFIELD is noticably missing, and only appears once in what i percieve as only a minor point in paragraph 5iii to explain how Brownfield would have been considered in the older DCLG/PINS guidance. Therefore am I right in assuming that all potential unallocated sites, regardless of Brownfield/Greenfield status, assuming that they meet the requirements set out in paragraph 54 of PPS3 can be included in the 5yr land supply? Any thoughts would be welcome Submitted by: Kim Balls

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:27:13 BST

Mark, I am glad your interpretation on this issue is the same. the basic matter of the fact in deciding whether HMOs afford PD rights comes down to the definitions and as you have said, the new C4 class covers small shared dwelling houses occupied by between 3 and 6 unrelated individuals who share basic amenities, which defines that the poperty is being used to perform a dwellinghouse function. To add to this, it should also be noted that for a property to be classed as an HMO it must be occupied as a remain residence (i.e. a place of living) which is the same function preformed by a dwellinghouse. It therfore has to follow that Class C4 benefits from PD rights under Part 1 of the GPDO Schedule 2. I have submitted a query to CLG on this very matter for further clarification and when I've had a response I will post it here. Submitted by: Oliver Taylor

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:37:26 BST

Para 27 of Circular 05/2010 states that "The new C4 class covers small shared dwelling houses occupied by between 3 and 6 unrelated individuals who share basic amenities". Dwelling houses benefit from PD rights under Part 1 of the GPDO Schedule 1. It has to follow that dwelling houses within Class C4 benefit from PD rights. I would have thought that larger HMOs, although still a sui generis use, also benefit from PD rights, as they are , by definition, dwelling houses, as defined in para 24 of 05/2010, ie "buildings that ordinarily afford the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence". Submitted by: MARK THACKERAY

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:17:21 BST

Oliver I do not subscribe to your view. HMO - C4, is not a dwellinghouse - C3. Therefore Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the T&CP(GPD)(Amendment)(No.2)(England) Order 2008 viz: "Development within the Curtilage of a Dwellinghouse" does not apply. This does not confer P.D. rights for HMOs. Submitted by: Martin Levick

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:55:25 BST

I see what your saying. Having just read briefly SI 2010/654 I find no amendments relvent to use class C4 other than where a CoU is applicable. It is my conclusion therfore that a building classed as C4 still preforms the function of an ordinary dwelling house and is therefore still bound by Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO so minor extensions and alterations etc would still be premitted development. I'd like to know what others think though? Submitted by: Oliver Taylor

Re: Multiple Occupation and Planning Permission

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:06:30 BST

Links to the amended legislation: Use Class Order amendment: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/uksi_20100653_en_1 GPDO amendment: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/uksi_20100654_en_1 Circular amendment: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1528858 This is a useful document which explains the background / intended purpose of the legislation: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1503595.pdf Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:04:53 BST

My query is that it appears C4 HMO's would not benefit from householder PD rights (as they are not C3 dwellinghouses), and therefore any such properties now require consent for extensions and alterations. Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:02:21 BST

Planning permission will be needed for a material change of use from C3 to C4. A change of use from C4 to C3 is permitted developed following the amendments to the GPDO which took effect as of yesterday also. Submitted by: Oliver Taylor

C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:59:21 BST

Is it the case that any properties that would have been considered C3 dwelling houses before the 6th of April, but are now classed as C4 HMOs, have effectively had their PD rights removed? Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: HMO - more than 6 occupants

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:30:49 BST

HMOs with more than 6 persons sharing are not classified under the Use Classes Order, they are "sui generis", that is, a use which does not fall into any of the categories defined within the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended. For further clarification you may care to look at Circular 05/2010; http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circulardwellinghouses Submitted by: Martin Levick

HMO - more than 6 occupants

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:17:38 BST

Hi Does any one know where a LA stands if a property has more than 6 occupants? Is there a use class that covers this, if not then how does planning control them? Thanks Jagdeep Birk Submitted by: Jagdeep Birk

Re: Getting access to blogs and social media

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:51:30 BST

A couple of planning law blogs: Planning Act 2008 - http://www.bdb-law.co.uk/blogs/anguswalker Plan-It Law - http://www.plan-it-law.com/ Those with a social policy angle: Neighbourhoods - http://neighbourhoods.typepad.com/ Ground Control - http://annaminton.blogspot.com/ Scottish planning: Action for Planning Transparency - http://actionforplanningtransparency.blogspot.com/ And of course Planning magazine's blog: Planning Blog - http://planningblog.wordpress.com/ Submitted by: Mark Wilding

Getting access to blogs and social media

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:13:11 BST

Hi all, As some of you know, some of us here quietly plug away at a blog over at http://planningadvisor.wordpress.com We've got some feedback from some folks that they can't access it due to IT policies in their council. Just wondering if anyone has successfully petitioned their IT bods to get access to blogs or other kinds of social media where there was a fairly clear work-based business case for it? Any tips/notes you want to share? Any other good blogs on planning worth reading to add to the case? eg/ There is the portal director blog at http://portaldirector.wordpress.com/ Cheers! John. Submitted by: John Chantler

Re: Reducing Invalid applications....could penalty fees be charged ?

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:26:01 BST

I have also been looking into the ability of an authority to charge for invalid applications, but received the following advice from our legal staff. With regard to the fees I know that some authorities do say that they will levy an administrative fee. For example Ealing states - REFUNDS Fees cannot be refunded if an application is registered as valid, withdrawn, refused or amended. If you pay too much or if your application is returned as invalid, a refund can be made on written request in appropriate cases. However, we reserve the right to deduct a minimum charge to cover administration costs. However the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1989 Regulation 3(5) states - Any fee paid pursuant to this regulation shall be refunded if the application is rejected as invalidly made. I cannot see any ability to retain an administration fee (unlike as you say Building Control fees) so if you do seek to make such a charge I think that this could be subject to challenge (on the basis that there is no statutory provision to charge a fee and instead an obligation to refund any fee paid ) if someone decided to take the point . I am aware that both Dacorum Borough Council and Leeds City Council are now charging for invalid application, but I have not been able to ascertain under what legislation these charges are being levied as yet given the advice above. Submitted by: Mike Davies

Re: New HMO Legislation (April 2010)

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:53:32 BST

So it appears we return to the grey area of what constitutes living together as a 'single household'. A shared house of 2-6 people would be either C3 or C4, and a shared house of 7 or more would be C3 or Sui Generis. How do these changes tightened things up or clarify what should be defined as an HMO as opposed to a shared dwelling house? Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Rural Exception Sites - What is 'small scale'?

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:14:28 BST

In Shropshire, our Interim Planning Guidance on affordable housing sets a maximum size of 20 dwellings, for "urban" exception sites (defined as settlements over 3,000 population). For smaller settlements (ie. under 3,000 population) exception sites should "reflect the character and scale of the settlement". We decided that it was unwise to put a number on it. It is worth noting that very small schemes take up as much time for an RSL as larger schemes, so setting too low a number can effectively make some schemes unviable. Submitted by: Helen Howie

Re: Rural Exception Sites - What is 'small scale'?

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:02:08 BST

At South Oxfordshire the size of the rural exception site is generally determined by the demand evidenced from the Housing Needs Survey. The number provided is usually half that of demand. The Local Plan does not lay down any specific numbers of houses or size of site, neither does the Core Strategy which is coming up to submission. There are the usual caveats about style and character and fitting in with the prevailing local character. Submitted by: Christine Lalley

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:05:34 GMT

Hi Martin, Recently did some interim management work with a London Borough where 'admin' work between planning and dc was centralised. It was widely regarded as a disaster (except by the director who implemented it). The problem was the admin team was responsible to no-one and it was impossible to get them to do anything (as ever matrix management doesnt work). Hence planner productivity fell considerably as they had to spend a good part of every day doing routine admin work. Certainly not a good use of expensive time. Critically no planning manager could implement business process improvements in an integrated manner. Spoke to a former POS chair - Steve Clark - who said every local authority who had done the same had the same problems and after a year or so abandoned it. Submitted by: Andrew Lainton

New HMO Legislation (April 2010)

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:21:59 GMT

CLG has confirmed that where house-sharers do not form a "single household", 2-6 people would be C4, more than 6 would be Sui Generis (HMO).. Submitted by: Tanya Mankoo-Flatt

Information Technologies in Public Participation

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:51:46 GMT

Hey guys, I am studying Urban Planning at Liverpool John Moores and in my final year. My dissertation is about the changing nature of public participation and consultation periods with regards to the implementation of new technologies. As part of my research, i am looking to gather the thoughts and opinions about these technologies from planning stakeholders such as consultants, officers and committee members with the use of an online questionnaire. If you would like be a part of this research, you may undertake a questionnaire (the link is below). This consists of TEN quick questions- NO personal information is taken and so the results will remain anonymous. If enough people are interested, I may post the final results here, such as what technologies are most used in LPA and what improvements are needed. http://www.survey.ljmu.ac.uk/participation/ Thanks for any support or input given, and feel free to post your comments in this topic. Thanks, Andrew Jalali. Urban Planning Student at LJMU. Submitted by: Andrew Jalali

New HMO Legislation (April 2010)

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:47:55 GMT

I was also wondering the same thing. SI 653 seems to be exclude this use from both the new C3 and C4. Submitted by: Tanya Mankoo-Flatt

Re: Portal Planning Applications

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:12:00 GMT

Hi Kelvin, we are looking at this again in Wakefield, as we are now getting many more PP applications. In the past, when it was less than 10% it wasn;t that big a hit. one of the things we are considering is only printing plans out at A3\A4 size, as any scaling etc can be done on the electronic version in our DMS. we already only print one copy of anything submitted electronically, and are working on switching to a 'paper light' process where we do not print any thing other than the, and those only when requested by the case officer. this is in its infancy at the moment, but we have seen it working at Sunderland with the same software as we use, so we know it can be done - if there is buy-in from above that is. Submitted by: Mark Wood

Portal Planning Applications

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:48:30 GMT

Would be interested to hear from any LPA's that have managed to reduce costs associated with printing off plans from Portal submissions. Do you work around or take the resource hit.! Submitted by: Kelvin Hinton

New HMO Legislation (April 2010)

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:14:01 GMT

Could anyone provide clarification on the impact of the revisions to the Use Classes Order and GPDO in relation to HMOs? Class I of the GPDO amendment defines "Development consisting of a change of use of a building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order from a use falling within Class C4 (houses in multiple occupation) of that Schedule" as permitted development. The Uses Classes amendment defines Classes C3 and C4 as follows: Class C3. Dwellinghouses Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by (a) a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household; (b) not more than six residents living together as a single household where care is provided for residents; or (c) not more than six residents living together as a single household where no care is provided to residents (other than a use within Class C4). Interpretation of Class C3 For the purposes of Class C3(a) single household shall be construed in accordance with section 258 of the Housing Act 2004(3). (4) In Part C of the Schedule, after Class C3 insert Class C4. Houses in multiple occupation Use of a dwellinghouse by not more than six residents as a house in multiple occupation . Interpretation of Class C4 For the purposes of Class C4 a house in multiple occupation does not include a converted block of flats to which section 257 of the Housing Act 2004 applies but otherwise has the same meaning as in section 254 of the Housing Act 2004. . Would this mean the conversion of a C4 HMO into flats would be permitted development? Would an HMO occupied by more than 6 residents still be classed as Sui Generis ? Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Multiple Occupation and Planning Permission

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:02:14 GMT

'ere 'tis http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/uksi_20100653_en_1 Submitted by: Martin Levick

Re: Multiple Occupation and Planning Permission

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:58:13 GMT

Here is the press release from LACROS, one of the organisations in the Local Government group: The Government has published new planning orders which will come into force on 6th April. The first Order (SI 653/2010), will create a new use class C4 (HMOs). It will follow the same definition as used is section 254 Housing Act 2004, except that section 257 HMOs are excluded. It will apply to HMOs with up to six residents. Planning permission will be required for all properties converted into C4 (HMOs) from 6th April, but the changes will not be retrospective. The Government has also published a new general permitted development order (SI 654/2010) which will enable properties within use class C4 (HMOs) to automatically revert to use class C3 (dwelling houses) without needing planning consent. I guess you could try googline the SIs and track them down that way. Good luck Submitted by: Alice Lester

Re: Changing the Way We Work

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:46:13 GMT

Sorry, meant to say... we have scanned all our files and decisions back to 1948. Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Changing the Way We Work

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:54:35 GMT

Hi Hampshire County Council implements 'Workstyle' which means we all work flexibly (we 'hot-desk' etc). Some of the flexible working info is online at: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/ictstrategy/ttt-the-strategy/its-egov-supporting-new-ways-of-working.htm There has been some storage issues in terms of the DC function, but we're in the process of 'backscanning' old files etc to move towards e-planning as much as possible. We have Passport technology that allows us to work from home. Emily Butcher Submitted by: Emily Butcher

Re: Changing the Way We Work

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:28:37 GMT

I recently completed a thesis on remote working and planners. The hypothesis was that remote working and planners were compatible, and looked into both the physiological and technological aspects. I had each of my staff take a Myers Briggs personality profile, which found that they all fitted into one of two types, both ideally suited to intellectual home working (rather than process driven such as benefit claims). At Stroud we have Citrix, giving us access to all back office systems Uniform IDOX Outlook and Office, even the VoIP phones work like they do in the office. To be honest, its better and faster than the desktop version. In short, the technological aspects aren t a problem, what you need to deal with is client expectations and the team building that is missed. Good luck Sent from home Submitted by: Philip Skill

Multiple Occupation and Planning Permission

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:15:42 GMT

Has anyone seen the new legislation requiring houses in multiple occupation to have planning permission? Related to change of use I think. It's supposed to be effective from 6 April! Thank you, John Submitted by: John Theobald

Re: 'Mandatory' Councillor Training

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:59:15 GMT

Within my authority there is no compulsory traing for general members, though information evenings held each month on various topics. For members of the Development Control Committee it is differant. There is a section of our constitution which states that no member can sit on DCC without being appropriatly trained (there is always a question about appropriate) We also require each member to attend an afternoon update training every year. Both rules are monitored by the monitoring officer and myself. Its not ideal, but it is at least something. I would welcome guidance on training levels, even to the extent of core competancies for decision makers. Phill Submitted by: Philip Skill

'Mandatory' Councillor Training

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:50:27 GMT

Hello - a local authority colleague has asked me how many LPA s have mandatory training schemes for councillors that involve two sessions a year - I dont know the answer, but thought forum users could help me. So: 1) Do you operate a 'mandatory' training scheme for committee members? 2) How often do councillors have to attend? 3) What's the experience - what are the key benefits - Better decisions? Better officer/councillor relations? Both these and more? etc. etc. Thanks Submitted by: martin hutchings

Re: Decision Notice formats

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:06:58 GMT

Forgot to say, you can then use programming in the letter templates to group them... sequencing also helps Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Decision Notice formats

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:05:59 GMT

Our early tests have merely used the sequence in Uniform to order the conditions. We have also looked at the "type" marker on the recomendations and decision tabs. You should use "M" for monitoring and "L" for legal so they are picked up in the development monitoring module, however there is nothing to stop them being used to store other letters such as S for Statutory, P for Precedent but use M for ongoing (so as to maintain Uniform) Let me know if you want futher details... Phill Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: HPDG delay

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:02:21 GMT

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/bulletins/Planning-Resource-Daily-Bulletin/News/990419/Healey-explains-HPDG-delay/?DCMP=EMC-DailyBulletin Submitted by: Peter Freer

Re: HPDG delay

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:40:10 GMT

Hi Mark, The provisional HPDG allocations were only released in December 2009 rather than July as in previous years. No confirmation has been received regarding the actual allocations/consultation or payments etc. Submitted by: Peter Freer

HPDG delay

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:23:44 GMT

It's been drawn to my attention that local authorities are still waiting to receive their allocations from the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant for 2009/10, three weeks before the year ends. I can't imagine this has helped cashflow at authorities which are already suffering from a drop-off in planning application fees. Has anyone noticed an effect in their planning department? If anyone is prepared to talk to me confidentially about the impact of the delay it would be good to hear from you. mark.wilding [at] haymarket.com 0208 267 8065 Submitted by: Mark Wilding

Design Guidance Childrens Play

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:58:35 GMT

I am currently in the process of writing a Residential Design SPD and would like to include some general design guidance on children's play and more specialised design guidance on teenage play/facilities. Does anybody know of any SPDs with similar content? especially with reference to the latter. Submitted by: Kirsty Stokes

Re: Decision Notice formats

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:40:31 GMT

Further to my original posting in the light of DCLG Conditions consultation the possibility of an ordered format for decision notices is likely to be recommended. Still keen to identify examples. Thanks Submitted by: Kelvin Hinton

Re: Minor modifications to existing approved schemes

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:34:27 GMT

Has any LPA using Uniform got a simple way of getting the listed approved plans into Decision Notice template so as to facilitate Section 73 sumission? Would like to hear from you if so. Thanks Submitted by: Kelvin Hinton

Re: Investigation into the impact of the permitted development changes of 1st October 2008

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:26:04 GMT

This website should also provide you with alot of useful information: http://www.planningjungle.com/ Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Investigation into the impact of the permitted development changes of 1st October 2008

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:36:34 GMT

Hi Andrew, You might want to post this in the permitted development community of practice. You can get to it here: http://www.communities.idea.gov.uk/c/929137/home.do Cheers, John. Submitted by: John Chantler

Re: Changing the Way We Work

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:05:12 GMT

Hi John, We already have flexible working policies that allow remote and home working, which I take advantage of, working from home one day a week. I believe the IT system needed some tweaks to allow staff to pick up emails at home. We still don't have remote access to the server and all our files though, which is a negative. I think it's fair to say that the policies are applied inconsistently across council departments, but it works well for our team (planning policy). In my view, it makes sense for those that are out of the office a lot for meetings anyway, to then work from home or work remotely for the rest of the day - it saves time on travelling and means overall more time can be spent on work. Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

Investigation into the impact of the permitted development changes of 1st October 2008

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:00:33 GMT

SURVEY LINK: http://pdsurvey.limeask.com/index.php?sid=31339&lang=en Hello, I am currently in my fourth year at the University of Liverpool studying Master of Planning (Undergraduate). I am currently undertaking an investigation to establish whether 'The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008' has had a beneficial impact on the English planning system and those involved with it. As you will know this was a piece of secondary legislation that amended homeowners rights to carry out certain forms of development without the need for planning permission. My dissertation is trying to establish whether the changes made by this legislation have in fact addressed the issues that the government said it would, and been beneficial for all involved I would really appreciate it if you could take 5 minutes of your time, probably a lot less, and complete a short survey available online. Your responses will be kept anonymous unless you give permission for you name to be used, there is a question relating to this at the beginning of the survey. My studies so far have recognised four groups of people involved with permitted development in England (outlined below). If you fit into, or can respond on behalf of others in any of these groups your response would be highly valued... DEVELOPERS: ...in this case refer to any person, organisation, or business that has the right to, or carries out permitted development on a piece of land. THE PUBLIC: ...refers to any UK citizen that is not carrying out permitted development. By definition a landowner could therefore fit into this group as well as the previous 'Developers' category LOCAL GOVERNMENT: ...primarily planning authorities across England (includes borough councils, local and district councils, National Parks and the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority). It includes councillors as well as any civil servants at the local authority level. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT: ...anyone involved with or had contact with permitted development at the central government level. They can be an MP, Lord, Life Peer, or emplyee in a central governmental body, department or organisation (the key department would be the Department for Communities and Local Government). Please click the following link to complete the survey... SURVEY LINK: http://pdsurvey.limeask.com/index.php?sid=31339&lang=en Many thanks, Andrew Metcalfe @ University of Liverpool P.S. Please forward this message to anyone you know that would be willing to complete the survey. Please think of people that have had any experience with permitted development, they can be homeowners, Local Councillors, MPs, Planning Officers, Private Consultants, Members of the Public, etc... thankyou in advance Submitted by: Andrew Metcalfe

Changing the Way We Work

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:51:39 GMT

Hi, My Council is currently undertaking a corpoarte programme of 'Changing the Way We Work' (C3W), by adopting a flexible approach to working e.g. remote working/home working, which it is hoped will result in cost savings and better customer sevice. Have any other Councils undertaken something similar; what has the experience been like; and has it improved the delivery of the planning service? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Submitted by: John Careford

Sustainable construction exeption site

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:23:33 GMT

Our Core Strategy only encourages sustainable construction and renewable energy techniques in new developments as we could not demonstrate viability for broad-brush approach in light of the Government s forthcoming targets. We are currently working on an Area Action Plan which we would like to take the above techniques further, however we can't implement a policy in the Area Action Plan area which effectively could be introduce to the whole Local Authority Area. Therefore would it be possible to pilot a policy which could possibly be rolled out to the whole area when a appropriate LDD is adopted in the future. The policy I am thinking about is an exception based policy for sustainable construction running on the PPS7 exemplar home stance. Therefore a site abutting a settlement boundary but in a countryside location could be considered if it was for high level sustainable construction and novelty eco way of living. Does anyone have any ideas on an exception type policy for sustainable construction similar to affordable housing exceptions policy which would demonstrate what could be achieved in the future? Submitted by: Peter Freer

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:25:10 GMT

At Fareham Borough Council, the planning policy section is under the Planning & Transportation service, whilst the Development Management section is under Public Services. Submitted by: Oliver Taylor

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:33:40 GMT

i agree with Roger, it is a mistake to think of our admin teams as 'only' admin staff. They are in fact Planning Support staff. On the surface they may look like they only do 'admin' but they don't. They work with the applicants\agents\consultees and members to ensure that the Planners have all the information they need to do their jobs. And that the Applicantions move through all parts of the planning process as smoothly as possible. This requires a level of skill, knowledge and dedication that is not possible IMO with a centralised team. Submitted by: Mark Wood

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:26:03 GMT

Yes, here in Cheltenham DC/DM is within the Built Environment Directorate and Strategic Land Use (policy) is within the Policy & Performance Directorate Submitted by: Martin Levick

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:24:47 GMT

Yes - Winchester City Council is set up in exactly that manner, following a re-structure about 4 years ago. The Strategic Planning department is part of the Policy Group, whilst Planning Management is part of the Operations Group. I can supply you with a Management Structure diagram if that helps? Please email me at ppenfold@winchester.gov.uk. Submitted by: Philippa Penfold

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:13:51 GMT

Slightly different query, but does anyone know of any authorities where the forward planning/planning policy function is in a seperate part (e.g. seperate department) of the council to development management? Thanks Harriet Submitted by: Harriet Fisher

Re: PPS4 Policies

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:35:09 GMT

Tanya Leeds City Council considered edge-of-centre applications from Tesco and Asda earlier this week. Asda gained approval and Tesco was refused on the basis of the sequential approach outlined in PPS4. I'm not sure about the decision notice but PPS4 policies are referred to in the officers' report which can be found here: http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/Published/C00000125/M00004642/AI00024522/ReportbyColliersCRE.pdf Submitted by: Mark Wilding

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:41:27 GMT

Have the other respondents not actually missed the core question about the admin function being centralised as opposed to the customer facing aspects of the service? I think I would have to argue that 'generic' admin staff are far less efficient or integrated when it comes to supporting the functions of the specialist officers. the admin team make sure documents get correctly processed and all required actions are timely and they remove much of the time consuming routine admin burden from the planning officers who are always in short supply. Centralisation can mean ending up in a queue for such support and could lead to officers becoming frustrated and deciding to DIY things. This in turn actually leads to a reduction in dept performance, which is what centralising was supposed to be improving in the first was it not? It almost smacks of the days of typing pools, where the staff didn't really need to know what they were typing, just the correct format for doing it! Customer Services staff are a different issue completely and we made the mistake of thinking we could simply transfer the planning service advisor role to the newly formed team and that they would get the whole team up to speed - wrong - it just ended up with planning officers being dragged out of the dept and down to the customer service dept! Submitted by: Roger Gambba-Jones

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:55:57 GMT

Here at Bromsgrove we have gone from a central admin team, to a joint BC/DC team then to dedicated admin functions for DC, BC and Env. Health functions. The key is what you want to achieve, cost savings or customer service. If it's cost savings then centralise, if it's customer service polarise. Within most processes you can affect cost, quality or time. If your lucky you may get two out of three options but never all three. There's no doubt that working closely with a team builds a rapport whilst being a stand alone function makes silo's and reduces co-operation/ understanding. Submitted by: Paul Murphy

Re: Minor modifications to existing approved schemes

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:51:36 GMT

can a person apply for a minor amendment application for a listed building consent approval? Submitted by: Lisa Walton

Re: Electronic Planning Application Case Files

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:10:43 GMT

Working electronically creates a headache for consultees e.g. Parish Councils. Preparing for review meetings can take hours. I have therefore developed http://planningapps.co.uk that works with several primary council's Public Access systems and allows groups to store and create their own lists of applications and download all the files. Meeting preparation comes down from 4 hours to 15 minutes. This is similar to the system I developed as a member of Baildon Parish Council review committee. http://baildon.org.uk/maps/planning/ Without a system such as this, in the absence of paper, parish councils could really struggle. Submitted by: Paul Marfell

PPS4 Policies

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:27:33 GMT

Has anyone yet used PPS4 policies directly to approve or refuse a planning application, where the policies have been mentioned in the decision notice? Submitted by: Tanya Mankoo-Flatt

Small Scale Supermarket near a Local Centre

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:11:22 GMT

The authority are currently considering releasing a parcel of land for a small scale supermarket, which would be located close to a small identified local centre. Currently, there is already a large convenience store located within the centre. I have been asked to do a bit of research to try and establish whether the two could co-exist and complement eachother, or if the new development would have a significant detrimental impact not just upon the store, but also upon the local centre. Obviously a new store could possibly take business away from an existing one, but If anybody has had a similar situtation in their local area and could perhaps offer guidance on other things to consider and potential positives and negatives etc, that would be very useful. Submitted by: David Marjoram

Re: Development in the Green Belt

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:42:13 GMT

*BUMP* Nina, did you get an answer to this at all? Might be worth asking over in the Permitted Development CoP, too. It's here: http://www.communities.idea.gov.uk/comm/landing-home.do?id=929137 J. Submitted by: John Chantler

Re: Annual Monitoring Reports

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:25:00 GMT

Dear Phillipa This is my first year in local government following 10 years on the other side of the fence, and so production of the AMR last year was my first real experience of them. We have since production of our 2009 AMR reviewed our Monitoring Framework for inclusion in the Submission Draft of our Core Strategy. This has been very helpful in terms of sourcing of indicators and the ways in which we can measure and monitor our proposed policies. However I am a little concerned that at present the AMR is a produced because it has to be, rather than being what is a potentially very informative document. I would be most interested in becoming involved in your exercise, to produce a more meaningful AMR for 2010. Submitted by: Andrew Byrne

Annual Monitoring Reports

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:50:01 GMT

Annual monitoring reports are the key document for setting out how effective your planning service is in laying the foundations for delivering the key priorities for your area. But what we have been hearing from some local authorities is that the AMR is not doing the job in terms of showing the positive impact of their planning activity to the members and senior executives. PAS are just starting a short project to look at the way that AMRs are prepared. We will be working with a small number of local authorities and consultants to see how their AMRs can be improved to better demonstrate the links between plan policies, working with local partners and delivering the outcomes that the council leaders and communities want. If you are interested in finding out more and discussing whether your local authority could take part in this project, please email me or phone on the number below. Best wishes Phillipa Silcock Principle Consultant Planning Advisory Service Ph: 07795 311 067 phillipa.silcock@idea.gov.uk Submitted by: Phillipa Silcock

Re: abc planning

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:27:02 GMT

Mark, Have a look at the Management & Performance section of PAS website - we have a project 'Managing Excellent Planning Services' (MEPS) http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=116545 We have an approach and toolkit based on ABC that we have adapted for the planning service. It looks at the whole service and is about resources and performance. Weare encouraging authorities to work in groups (benchmarking). Take a look, and give me a call - 01917202319. Martin Hutchings. Project Manager PAS. Submitted by: martin hutchings

Re: abc planning

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:10:15 GMT

i was sure it was on the ESDToolkit site, but given how counter-intuitive i find that site, i'm struggling to find it. Submitted by: Mark Wood

Re: abc planning

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:42:57 GMT

Mark, I have recently been approached by a company called Valueadding.com they provide a ABC toolkit for planning, however there is a charge but may be worth a look. The contact I have is Richard Coombes. Submitted by: Jane Lamine

abc planning

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:12:05 GMT

does anyone know if there is an Activity Based Costing (ABC) model/toolkit available for planning? i'm sure i've seen one on a website once, just can't remember where. any help muh appreciated. Submitted by: Mark Wood

Re: Electronic Planning Application Case Files

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:08:58 GMT

same here at Wakefield. even if you put signed copies of the DN on the website, the solicitors will still ask for a new copy. Which we of course charge them for ( 7.50 each i think, this is down from the previous 15). this is excempt from the normal rules, about only charging 10p etc as they have the option of printing their own one off. We don't simply print what is on the web though, we actually reprint it from the Planning System and re-sign it. (the quality is better). we assume that as the solicitors are passing this cost on to their clients (no doubt with a healthy margin) that they are not too 'cost conscious'. Submitted by: Mark Wood

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:55:04 GMT

We at Stroud have centralised admin into a Building Control / Planning function. I worry about loosing expertize and the over use of "admin" to discribe a technical role could be dangerous. We tried a common customer service centre, but withdrew once we noted that the quality of advice was "patchy" to say the least. We operate a philosophy based on the work of John Seddon, and particulary reducing failure demand. John's work on the Toyota system has many benefits which transend cost savings. He showed that by opening call centres all you did was increase the number of calls, as the advice given was inaccurate, missdirected and largely a waste of time. What the customer wants is to talk to someone who can give them an answer there and then, not someone who works to a script, cannot give a decision based on the diversity of the caller and their issue. This translates to the technical support team. They need specialist knowledge as to what makes a valid application, fees, use of certificates etc. Combining these staff with say revs and bens dilutes that expertise and degrades BOTH services. With Building Control, the process is linear and joint applications are common, the client group is the same, and in our case the back office system is the same. Such combinations make sence. Corporate typing pools is a retrograde system and I for one would resist it, from a professional, financial and customer basis. Sorry Phill Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Electronic Planning Application Case Files

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:42:07 GMT

Paul: We treat "public signatures" as fair game. If an individual is signing on behalf of an organisation or as part of a legal document which MUST be published, we take the view, as confirmed by our data protection officer that the identity must be evident. Regarding signatures of staff and consultees (EA-EH-etc) we do not redact them. The data protection act protects personal data, and these are clearly not personal documents. I have two signatures, one for work and one for my cheque book... in reality, what is to stop someone taking down one of my site notices and scanning my signature... M staff are aware of this policy, and have no problem. Copies of all these documents are subject to FOI as well, and redaction would be frowned upon... Note of caution, get your FOI/Data Protection officer to agree this... it helps when the complaints come through... and there will be complaints. Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Electronic Planning Application Case Files

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:16:11 GMT

Phil What has been your stance on redacting the signatures for backscanned DN's (ie. blanking out the Cheif Planning Officer/Director signature). We are conscious that for solitcitors they require the "official" signed copies of DN's for Land Charges purposes, so we are keen here for them to access these online and self-serve. Regards Paul Head of Customer & Support (Envrionment & Planning) - paul.boucher@cambridge.gov.uk Submitted by: Paul Boucher

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:11:03 GMT

Martin We have just completed a formal consultation on restructuring our Environment & Planning services. This has been off the back of the authority's Customer Access Strategy (CAS), which has included setting up a Customer Service Centre, closing 5-6 reception points, transferring "customer activities" into the centre and deploying new technologies. This has also resulted in a reduction of staff through BPR of activities, new technologies (EDRMS etc) and the need to payback the investment in the CAS, once this has been achieved significant ongoing savings for the council will be realised. We are bringing together adminstrative/business support functions from DC, BC, Trees,into a new Application Support Team team, with the CSC providing the face to face, telephone, email front line service for planning. This new team is still within the E&P department but under new management arrangements and not directly managed by the planning service. The lead manager is a Business/ICT Specialist. The Application Support Team is one of three teams in the centralised support others being Business Resources (Finance, H&S, Local HR and general admin) and Information Services (GIS, LLPG, Specialist Systems admin/ICT Support for departmental systems e.g Planning Database (UNI-Form) and Environmental Health (M3). Our new structure will be in place from 6 April. We are aware that it is a radical approach from the norm. Maintaining small dedicated admin teams gong forward for us is not sustainable and the requirement to continually reduce our operational costs. At the same of all this, we are reducing our planning workforce as part of the investment in the CSC and new technologies. Going forward we will need to a) Build upon current specialist skills and developing this to ensure resilience of knowledge and cover. b) Use the right officer with the right skills for the right task c) Overcome perceived concerns that BC/DC Managers will not be involved operationally in decisions and that the strong relationships that have been built up between business support and professional officer are not going to be undermined. If you want any further information/thoughts please email me paul.boucher@cambridge.gov.uk Paul Submitted by: Paul Boucher

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:08:36 GMT

I think many authorities will have gone down the road of transferring certain parts of the planning administration or support function over to a customer services delivery channel over recent years. Whilst this probably does not deal with the entirety of the planning support role it can represent a good chunk - dealing with queries, receiving applications, etc. I think the issues raised by Ian are pertinent to this type of change and, potentially, other types of transfer of the admin role. These would include:- - the importance of specialist knowledge to undertaking the role - shared infrastructure be that a physical location for customer contact or filing, IT system, hardware facilities scanners and so on. - relationship with professional staff will this be strengthened or weakened, is this important? For example there may be a strong relationship between a DC Support Team and professional officers, will that be lost? Are there implications for career progression? Submitted by: Neil Gage

Re: Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:43:56 GMT

Hi Martin I used to run a centralised admin team which covered planning, building control, planning policy and environmental health. I found that the specific knowledge requirements of each of these areas as well as the need to be able to provide a decent level of technical back up to Officers and decent advice to customers led us back down the route of specific admin roles and functions for each department. It would make a difference if the level of admin support was pretty basic and generic but most people do that sort of work on their own these days. If the admin team is expected to take phone calls for the department they need to either have, or be close enough to, the answer to provide the customer/client/service user (insert suitably PC alternative!!) with a quality response otherwise if will be perceived as a barrier between the service and its users. Regards Ian Reekie MId Suffolk District Council Planning Services Submitted by: Ian Reekie

Centralising the Planning Administration Function

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:29:59 GMT

An authority I am working with has asked if there is any LPAs out there that have had their admin teams 'centralised' - taken out of planning and put into some sort of corporate admin team. Is this unusual in planning functions? Any info on whether it is a good/bad/indifferent thing? Are there pitfalls that can be highlighted? Thanks. Submitted by: martin hutchings

Rural Exception Sites - What is 'small scale'?

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:50:06 GMT

our current Local Plan Policy specifies not to exceed 0.4ha. Pur draft Core Strategy removes this reference to actual size, and instead requires sites to be small scale in relation to the settlement..as our villages vary enormously in existing size, the intention is that the new development is in scale with the existing village. Submitted by: Tanya Mankoo-Flatt

Re: Rural Exception Sites - What is 'small scale'?

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:43:39 GMT

Exceptions Sites are something that Mole Valley (Surrey) uses to help deliver more affordable housing in rural areas. We do not have a definition of what is considered 'small' or plan to introduce one. It is considered that a figure could be either limiting i.e. more than the stated amount is considered appropriate on a site, or would be used to push for the maximum number of units stated in the policy when the Council considers this inappropriate. Our draft Affordable Housing SPD looks at this issue and outlines a no. of bullet points whereby an exception site may be considered acceptable. We have used reference to 'fitting in' with the character / scale of the hosting rural community / settlement rather than a figure. I would suggest that if you did start to look at setting a figure you need to consider what you would generally consider acceptable in rural villages. For somewhere like Mole Valley this is probably 5 units. For other Boroughs / District this may be higher / lower and rural depending on the general character, pattern of the settlement and sustainability issues. Hope this helps. Submitted by: Suzanne Parkes

Ever tried coaching to assist with planning challenges and CPD?

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:31:50 GMT

What has challenged you recently? Have you ever been offered coaching to assist with career development or the day to day challenges of the workplace? Submitted by: Helen Chapman

Mitigating Flood Risk

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:09:29 GMT

I am involved in a planning application for the change of use of an existing and vacant hostel/visitor centre, to an outdoor education centre. One of the central issues relates to potential flood risk. We are unable to alter the finished floor levels internally because this would have headroom implications. I'm particularly interested in any situations out there where a more pragmatic view of flood risk has been taken on the basis that an application relates to an existing building, with a lawful use that could be reverted to without permission being necessary. Cheers.. Mike Hyde Submitted by: Michael Hyde

Re: Electronic Planning Application Case Files

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:51:30 GMT

as an update. The IDOX file is the "real" file. DC/DM units must be careful of NOT having two official files. The folders we have on our desks are merely a binder for keeping our drawings and admin papers together. The Part II register is the website. We donot have paper copies of decision notices any more, and have scanned all our files back to 1948ish. Whilst only files from 2006 are available on the web, our entire planning history is available at the customer services desk, and individual files can be emailed on request at no cost. The decision notices from 1948 to 2006 are all scanned to PDF and are available to download at no cost from the website. The plotting sheets are also on the web (conected to GIS) so the public can find any decision notice they want. We made the decision to make all planning data available following rulings on the environmental regs meant that land charge searches could make requests without making a search. To see this in action go to www.stroud.gov.uk/planning and follow the link to "Look and print planning decision notices from 1947 to 2005" if you use postcode gl5 4xb you will get the Council Offices. see how you get on... all done on a shoe-string Phill Submitted by: Philip Skill