The way the design for the stained glass window for the new Northbrook School building has been approved by the Council ‘behind closed doors’ has caused a lot of controversy and ill-feeling locally.  As I wrote last week, I believe there’s a need for a written policy so that residents can understand how such decisions are made (even if they don’t agree with the decision itself!) and so that it’s clear when ‘details’ become big deals and need to be consulted on.

I promised to raise this at Council and did so last Wednesday.   My question, and the Deputy Mayor’s disappointing response is below:

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

25 NOVEMBER 2009

Question by Councillor Robson of the Deputy Mayor

Question

A recent decision made by planning officers to agree a ‘detail’ of a planning permission without further consulting residents has caused some controversy in Lee Green Ward. Having asked officers for a copy of the procedure followed in this case, I was surprised to be told that there is no written procedure for officers to follow in deciding whether such details conform to the original permission. Can Members be assured that a written policy is put in place to ensure that residents can understand the processes followed in such cases?

Reply

The question is referring to what is known as “Approval of Details” applications. These are submitted by applicants in order to discharge their obligations by way of conditions imposed on planning permissions. Such requirements normally arise in instances where fuller illustrative details or technical specifications are needed. In granting the original planning permission the principle of the development has already been confirmed, but the submission and approval of appropriate details serves to ensure that the development will be implemented to a satisfactory standard.

It is not normal practice amongst local planning authorities to notify or consult third parties on Approval of Detail applications for the simple reason that the formal consultation exercise will already have been undertaken for the original application. Indeed, Lewisham Council’s Statement of Community Involvement makes no reference to such applications.

The decision to impose particular conditions on a planning permission may sometimes be as a consequence of the stated concerns of local occupiers, and it is also important that these applications – which amount to approximately 12% of the yearly total – are dealt with as expeditiously as possible, so as not to hinder or delay developments of acceptable form. Accordingly, officers, who enjoy delegated authority by way of the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, are entrusted to use discretionary judgement to this end. There have been occasions when the committee determining the application may consider that the details of a particular issue are of such significance that they need to be referred back to them for decision. If the committee do not take this approach it is normal practice for officers to discharge the conditions under their delegated powers.

In the interests of consistency the original case officer will invariably deal with the process of discharging the terms and conditions of a planning permission. The formal approval process also requires the agreement and signature of a senior officer. With such safeguards in place I do not believe that producing a policy or guidance note as to how such submissions should be best dealt with would serve any useful purpose.

 In my supplementary question, I pressed the Deputy Mayor further, pointing out that residents have a right to understand what’s going on, and that the council also owes it to planning officers to have a policy in place that they can refer to rather than leaving them defending decisions without the benefit of a written policy to guide them.  The Deputy Mayor reiterated her belief that producing a policy or guidance note isn’t a good use of officer time. 

My own view, for what it’s worth, is that officer time spent serving residents is time well spent, and the Northbrook case shows that residents aren’t being best served by the current lack of policy.