Decision details

a) That Members adopt the revised charging schedule and categories to be introduced on 6th October 2020.
b) To agree that the pre-application charging scheme will be reviewed in 12 months’ time.

Matter for Decision 

The report referred to the Shared Planning Service commitment to review and integrate its process for providing pre-application advice in the 2020/2021 Business Plan.

 

Having begun that process earlier in the year, approval was sought for the proposed future arrangements for (including charges) for pre-application advice. This service offer would sit alongside the statutory planning application process (where fees and process are determined nationally) and which was unaffected by these proposals.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces. 

      i.         Agreed the proposals for Cambridge City Council to introduce the revised pre-application service offer and charging schedule set out in the Officer’s report for the Cambridge City Council area from 2nd November 2020.

 

Reason for the Decision 

As set out in the Officer’s report. 

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected 

Not applicable. 

 

Scrutiny Considerations 

The Committee received a report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:  

      i.         Felt that the charges were too low for the quality of service received and could be higher.

    ii.         The scaling of the charges was disproportionate.

   iii.         The fees did seem to be minor compared to the private sector but noted it was important the service needed to be accessible to all members of the public.

  iv.         Asked as the fees for smaller businesses had been reduced could the same be done for smaller charities undertaking small developments.  

    v.         Queried why an article 4 direction was not being charged for.

  vi.         Noted there was no fees for parish councils and asked if city councils need to be included.

 vii.         DPA (Data Protection Act) guidance should sought when officers were offering virtual advice to developers / applicants as this could be sensitive and confidential; should be made aware to developers this information could be shared under a Freedom of Information request.

viii.         Exemption for disabled people as stated in the scheme should also include invisible disabilities.

  ix.         Welcomed the standardisation of costs across the two authorities.

    x.         Fees should be reviewed annually to ensure stable increments.

  xi.         Asked was to the local authority’s advantage for people to take pre-application advice.

 

In response to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:  

      i.         One of the benefits of pre application advice allowed the achievement of the objective by giving early advice into a process. If an application were submitted without pre application advice and required changing this could be time consuming, introduce costs to the planning service and the applicant.

    ii.         Recognised there would be a range of people on various income streams applying for planning permission and had retained the fifteen-minute free advice to assist those on lower incomes.

   iii.         Would work on the definition of disability to ensure there were no disadvantages to some individuals.

  iv.         Would work with the Executive Councillor to examine if small charities could qualify for a reduction of costs as small businesses. Would liaise with the Chair and Spokes on the wording of this clause; however, a position of judgement would be retained in the final schedule dependent on the charity’s size of development and costs

    v.         There was no comparable body to the parish council in Cambridge City.

  vi.         Developments which used Article 4 were exempt from a planning fee and it was for committee to determine whether this exemption should be removed from the schedule

 vii.         Guidance on DPA would be provided for officers when offering advice virtually and for those who accessed the virtual advice.  

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted) 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.