Kirklees councillors from across the political spectrum have voiced serious concern over new planning rules.
The regulations, under the National Scheme of Delegation, will be coming into play from 31 October under the Labour government’s wider programme of planning reform. The move will see more decisions made by planning officers, with applications only sent to Kirklees Council’s Strategic Planning Committee or District-wide Planning Committee if certain conditions are met.
The aim is to speed up decision making and ensure greater clarity and consistency about the role of planning committees. But it will remove the existing right of Kirklees councillors to refer an application to a committee for decision. Applications which receive a high number of public representations contrary to the recommendation of officers automatically go to committee at the moment, but this will no longer be the case. Such plans could still be decided by a committee if they meet a new test.
Going forward, applications will be divided into ‘Schedule 1’ and ‘Schedule 2’. All Schedule 1 applications, which primarily refer to householder, minor commercial and minor residential developments, must be determined by council officers. Schedule 2 generally covers larger plans as well as applications to change the use of a premises. These can be decided by either planning officers or planning committee.
To get to the planning committee, the Chief Planning Officer and Chair of the relevant planning committee must agree that a Schedule 2 application raises a significant economic, social or environmental issue for the local area; or come with one or more significant planning matters. This process is called the ‘gateway test’. Local authorities get to decide which Schedule 2 applications the gateway test can be applied to.
The matter was discussed by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee on Friday 9 October, with several councillors who do not sit on the committee also in attendance.
Image: Kirklees Council
Leader of the Green group, Cllr Andrew Cooper, told the meeting that the council is being invited to sign a “surrender document” to hand over its powers to unelected officials. He said: “The so-called problem that the government is trying to solve is to stop councils holding up development. However, the answer to achieving Labour’s 1.5m houses stares us in the face.
“There are 1.4m houses that have already been granted planning permission but haven’t been built. It is developers themselves who are the problem here. Developers are land banking for future gain and as a result councils will be asked by the Labour government to surrender valued greenspace for house building.”
Councillor Andrew Pinnock (Lib Dems, Cleckheaton), said that the council needed to look at “damage limitation”. He spoke of the “crucial” role of planning committees in ensuring decision making is made public and added: “Any attempt to restrict the use of planning committees I think is a backwards step.”
Committee members were similarly concerned. Councillor Richard Smith (Conservative, Kirkburton) voiced his worries around the reduced role of communities and councillors under the new system, but said he was “pragmatic” about the fact that the council has to operate within the law.
Councillor Kath Pinnock (Lib Dems, Cleckheaton) said she believed the regulations are “based partly on false premises”- that delays in decisions on planning applications are entirely the responsibility of the democratic process. She added: “Let’s not kid ourselves that this is a
manifest robbing of councillors’ rights because 95 per cent are already made by planning officers.”
The councillor said that while the council has to “accept that the law is the law”, it needed to make the best of the situation and shape the policy as best it can. She suggested some amendments to the recommendations made by officers, which were backed by committee members.
Officers had proposed that applications for developments of more than 100 houses or exceeding 5,000 sqm in gross floor space would be the subject of the gateway test. But members felt this was too broad and agreed to a reduction. After much discussion, it was agreed that 40 houses or 1,500 sqm be the threshold.
The proposals will now be considered by the Full Council at their meeting on October 21. Subject to approval, the changes will be written into the council’s constitution. If members do not agree, the council will leave itself open to legal challenge.
