The Planning Process
The first hurdle is validation. It can take about a week for officers to determine whether the application is technically proficient and has the right supporting documentation.
If valid, it will be placed on the planning register. If you know the application number, or the Planning Portal reference number, it's progress can be tracked via the SMDC Planning Portal. Recent applications are shown on a Weekly List.
The application will be forwarded to neighbours and a variety of consultees including the local parish or town council and Staffordshire CC Highways. The council's countryside officers or building conservation officers may be consulted. If required, other organisations such as the Environment Agency, or the Staffs Wildlife Trust may also be consulted. Neighbours and consultees have four weeks to register an objection.
The vast majority of applications are dealt with by an individual officer. The officer will make a site visit, consider the consultee representations and prepare a delegated report for the development control manager who will sign and issue the decision.
Most full applications, including householder applications are dealt with within eight weeks from receipt of a valid application. Agricultural Notices or GPDO's will be dealt with in four weeks, major applications in twelve.
Under no circumstances will SMDC development control officers delay determination - say pending receipt of further information. The application will either need to be withdrawn (and re-submitted at a later date) else it will be refused. See Editorial comment below
Major and more complex applications will be dealt with by committee. An application may be "called in" to committee by requesting the intervention of a councillor. However the applicant would first need to be made aware that the officer is minded to refuse the application.
Editorial Comment
The Staffordshire Moorlands Planning Regime
The current planning system is being revised. The LDF will comprise a collection of development plan documents (DPD's), the Local Development Scheme, (LDS) and a variety of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD's).
The LDS is a programme for implementation of the LDF including the Core Strategy, action plans for Biddulph, Masterplans for Leek, Cheadle and the Churnet Valley in addition to site specific policy. DPD's include the Core Strategy and the Area Action Plan for Biddulph. SPD's will cover housing, design, sport & recreation plus SPD's for Leek, Cheadle, Alton, the Churnet Valley & Blythe Bridge.
The LDF will eventually replace the current collection of saved local plan policies in the old style Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan. The Core Strategy is due for adoption in September 2012. Supplementary planning documents are due to be adopted in March 2013.
For the present, most applications will be determined on the basis of saved local plan policies. These are little more than a terse collection of bullet points which can be interpreted subjectively, as development control officers see fit. Without the support of detailed design guides or Supplementary Planning Documents, it can make it difficult to second guess what is likely to be approved and can lead to inconsistent and incomprehensible decision making.
Culture
Development Control Officer's are generally not pro-active. They tend to be unwilling to discuss in any depth an application once submitted. The application will therefore run it's course to be approved, subject to conditions, else refused. This approach means that minor revisions, which could have been submitted prior to determination, have to be dealt with formally through subsequent discharge of conditions, variation of conditions or non-material amendment.
If the officer consider that the application cannot be supported, or is unlikely to be supported without changes, they are quite likely to simply issue the refusal notice without further ado. This approach effectively restricts the applicant's options: It being too late to withdraw the application (and re-submit a revised scheme). It would also be too late to request the intervention of a councillor.
The department's approach to planning appears to largely driven by funding, which in turn focuses attention on meeting targets - achieving 8 week decision periods for example. Put bluntly, departmental performance appears to be measured in terms of speed rather than the quality of outcomes for the applicant. This results in any number of problems including:
- 'Cut and paste' decision notices
- Over-conditioned decision notices
- Applications refused where minor amendments would suffice
In our view, leaving development plans in unresolved state simply results in further submissions, a greater workload for an under-resourced department, higher costs for the applicant and more enforcement issues further down the line.
Deterrent Pre-app Fees?
The main reasons given for charging are to provide a better final outcome by drawing attention to the particular issues which need to be addressed in the subsequent application.
However, the process also provides development control officers with an opportunity to deter proposals which they would wish to resist.
The decision to substantially raise the pre-app fees was made because of financial pressures and under-staffing. Since many small developers are likely to baulk at paying the new pre-app fees, the council's stated aim of improving outcomes and deterring ill thought out schemes, is unlikely to succeed.