Agenda item

The Chair introduced Andrew Mullaney (Head of Planning & Environment) and CC Liz Oades, the Chair of the Task Group, who delivered the report to the Committee.

CC Liz Oades explained that the Task Group investigated several issues relating to planning including education, highways, flooding, archaeology and ecology. It was noted that the outcome of the investigation had led to the derivation of the draft recommendations at Appendix 'A', which had been sent to consultees to ascertain their views.

The Committee was informed that the report was an interim report as not all district council planning committee Chair's and portfolio holders had provided their responses to the consultation process. Therefore, it was anticipated that the final report would be before the Committee at the next meeting on, 8 April, 2016.

CC Liz Oades voiced that member's attendance throughout the Task Group meetings had been below par and therefore urged political groups to carefully consider their nominations to future Task Groups as continuity had been an issue. CC Clare Pritchard suggested that Group Whips be informed to address the issue.

The Chair noted that seven district councils had responded to the consultation, however five had not yet been received and urged members to raise this with district councils in their area.

Andrew Mullaney noted that he felt that the scrutiny process had strengthened relationships between the county council and district councils, particularly at an officer level, and that discussions held had been extremely useful to aid understanding of each other's pressures, concerns, how timing was managed and how responses could be provided in a more productive manner.

Andrew Mullaney noted that both district councils and the county council had been under pressure to turn around applications within certain timescales, with performance monitored by the Government. It was noted that the Task Group process had highlighted ways in which the process could be streamlined and prioritised with improved communication.

The Chair thanked Andrew Mullaney and CC Liz Oades and invited questions and comments from the Committee.

CC George Wilkins asked if the county council's role with district councils regarding planning could be expanded to ensure that developers adhered to rules and regulations. Andrew Mullaney explained that the county council had to operate within the limits of the national planning policy framework/planning policy guidance and therefore, there was limited flexibility in terms of demands upon developers. However, Andrew assured the Committee that the county council's responses were always put forward to achieve the best for Lancashire's communities.

CC Vivien Taylor stated that many residents in Lancashire were worried that the infrastructure was not in place to sustain the developments that were in the planning process and therefore stressed that the county council needed to provide valid responses that met the needs of developments and not only developers. Andrew Mullaney stated that a report was presented to the Task Group regarding this issue which set out what the county council performed in its role in the process. Andrew suggested that he would share the report with members following the conclusion of the meeting.

CC John Shedwick queried whether the recommendation, 'LCC officers to prepare a summary of the highways advice to the LPA for inclusion in reports to the LPA's development control committee', suggested that an executive summary drafted by LCC officers would be provided to development control committees. CC Liz Oades explained that some district officers had been using exerts from planning reports out of context and therefore, to avoid any further misunderstanding, county council officers would provide an executive summary to alleviate the issue.

CC John Shedwick asked how an application was deemed to be a 'minor application' as some small applications caused significant issues. CC Liz Oades explained that district councils had been sending a large amount of applications to the county council for developments, such as small extensions to a house, which had expended LCC Officer's time when it was more efficiently used on more important developments.

CC John Shedwick asked whether the recommendations suggested that if information around Education Contributions was absent from a district planning committee report, an explanation would be required from the relevant planning officers. CC Liz Oades explained that the Task Group requested the inclusion of the recommendation as it needed consideration with the current issues around school places. This, it was conveyed, had been a concern for Head teachers.

CC John Shedwick stated that there was confusion regarding who had riparian responsibilities for watercourses in the county. CC Liz Oades stated that in April, 2015, the county council became the responsible party for flooding and Rachel Crompton (Flood Risk Manager) was the county council contact. CC Liz Oades urged members to invite Rachel to their districts to discuss flooding and the responsibilities of her department. Furthermore, it was noted that flooding incidents needed to be reported to Rachel as she was currently mapping the area where flooding had occurred.

CC Alyson Barnes explained that within her electoral division, Rossendale, 5,000 to 5,500 new homes over the next fifteen years were planned and in terms of the geography and topography of the region it was causing concern. It was noted that CC Alyson Barnes would be writing to Government stating her concerns.

CC Alyson Barnes noted that by 2021 it was planned that there would be one million new homes in the United Kingdom and asked how the county council planned to absorb their proportion of the total with consideration of the infrastructure issues already evident. Andrew Mullaney highlighted plans for North West Preston as an example of the approach to be adopted going forward to deal with such large scale developments. It was explained that in the building of the new homes, there had been particular consideration for infrastructure to ensure roads could accommodate for the increased demand.

CC David Westley raised that is was important for district councils to have a local plan as it provided an element of overall protection.

CC David Westley noted that he and CC Alyson Barnes sat on a Local Government association board which was currently considering national planning policy and that they would be responding to a consultation by Government. It was therefore suggested as a route towards expressing opinions to the Government regarding national planning policy.

CC Vivien Taylor stressed the need for a collective and cohesive approach to planning across Lancashire due to demands upon infrastructure.

CC Carl Crompton noted that the development works in North West Preston had created many issues with numerous complaints being received from residents regarding HGV's, infrastructure issues, crumbling roads, workers not adhering to prescribed working times, and many other issues. It was stressed that for future developments the road system should be put in first and the housing afterwards as it had created major problems in the area.

CC Clare Pritchard expressed that issues with local government funding appeared to be affecting planning and maybe it was an area that should be highlighted in the final report.

CC Alyson Barnes stated that there was a need for more effective infrastructure planning and a much more strategic approach to development in general.

CC Alyson Barnes noted that archaeological and ecological advice would diminish going forward and therefore queried what was planned to ensure this was available going forward. Andrew Mullaney explained that ecology advice was never a statutory responsibility of the county council and was offered to district councils as a discretionary service. It the volume of requests received was unmanageable for the county council and therefore discussions had taken place with district councils to increase charges for the service, however these were unsuccessful and the service stopped. It was explained that district councils now acquired ecology advice from other sources and this had been the arrangement for the last 18 months.

Regarding archaeological advice, it was noted that one of the budget proposals agreed was to stop the historic environment service, which involved managing the historic environment record and providing advice from that record to district councils. It was noted that discussions were ongoing with people involved to continue to the service, however it was emphasised that there was only a slight possibility for a solution.

The Chair asked if any agencies or universities in Lancashire had been approached, for example as an archaeological study. Andrew Mullaney explained that discussions had taken place, however various avenues for solutions had not materialised and the position was difficult.

CC Liz Oades noted that LCC received 4,500 applications every year and there were capacity issues. It was stated that the Task Group did investigate implementing a charging policy for pre-application advice and guidance but this required Government authorisation.

CC Alyson Barnes noted that the Environment Agency was accepting flood risk assessments carried out by developers and that this was also the case for some transport assessments. Therefore, it was queried what was thought of the neutrality of the situation with developers undertaking their own assessments. Andrew Mullaney explained that during the Shale Gas applications, developers submitted their own transport risk assessments which were detailed and scrutinised by LCC and statutory consultees. It was noted that the process was robust, in particular regarding high-profile cases, and if there were problems, expert advice could be sought such as had happened recently. CC Liz Oades agreed that for high profile cases the process was robust, however it was highlighted that residential groups had had to buy in their own experts on occasion for advice and also, the arrangement between developers and the Environment Agency had not been well received which had contributed to the aforesaid.

CC David Westley stated that the county council often received blame at district planning committees when the advice provided objected to an application. It was stressed that the county council report should be read in full as this provided greater context and therefore understanding. CC Liz Oades agreed that this was the case.

CC David Westley requested the relevant documentation from Andrew Mullaney in order to chase up his district's response.

The Chair thanked CC Liz Oades and Andrew Mullaney for the report, and asked Democratic Services Officers to compile a list of questions and comments that were voiced in order to avoid the same questions being asked at the next committee meeting where the full report would be presented.

Resolved: That;

1. The report be noted
2. The recommendations be noted
3. A list of questions and comments be provided to the Committee from the meeting