Councillors and Pre Application Discussions - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Im currently working on a commitee report on this with the aim of possibly starting a development forum facility at which developers can present their emerging proposals to our planning committee. There is a lot of guidance on this topic and general encouragement for it . most recently in the killian pretty review- I have found the POS guide most useful which is attached. My report will most probably ask members for an initial resolution to agree to explore the topic further with a working group then set up to sort out the broad operating principles.

The standards board have put together an "occasional paper" that covers this very issue. It's written in very clear language with useful examples: http://www.standardsboard.gov.uk/Publications/OccasionalPaper/ We did some work wth the standards board recently that I hope to package up in the new year. Richard

Bryan, I did a lot of work on this in 2007 and we ended up with a very clear protocol and associated guidance documents. Warning though, the process was long and very painful at times! Happy to share then. Drop me an email if you're interested as there are too many files to attach here. michael.anderson@camden.gov.uk

I detect an element of irony here. As the pre-application process becomes more codified it comes closer to the formal application process and we may end up with two formal and "open" application processes running end to end. That may help but also hinder pre-application discussions with developers. If everyone checks that they are doing the "right" thing as the lawyers advise us, that may well slow the process down, discourage developers taking part in it and dampen creativity and discretion and ultimately the public benefit. The concern for correctness and for scruitny may ultimately painfully kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.

We've recently gone through the same debate in Exeter. I attach a copy of our committee report and agreed protocol.

I tend to agree with David Breeze on the irony aspect that is creeping in here. There seems to be a degree of cake and eat it on the part of those elected members who on the one hand want to fully involved at the pre-app stage AND still and to be involved in the decision making process. I am also begining to see an element of officers bending over backwards to accommodate this unaaceptable demand. If the member has major issues with a development then let him or her get stuck into it as early as possible and accept that this will prevent them from being part of the actual decision making. As an elected member I take a very cautious view of those members who want it both ways. If the important thing is to get the development right from the outset or to raise major concerns, they should be willing to sacrifice their right to vote at the later stage. Members motives for wanting to be in at the kill vary, from believing that this is the only time they can express an opinion to seeing it as a chance to perform in front of their public! I remain uncomfortable with officers and other experts writing protocols and procedures on behalf of members that either tie them or knots or allow them to push the boundaries. This is something members should be able to construct for themselves based on expert advice not have spoon fed to them.

These are all interesting views. Last year, "positive engagement" was published to specifically address some of these issues : "It is intended to summarise the principles that should be observed to enable you to both participate in and lead the system." http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/aio/11665 It seems to me that councillor involvement was essential in "DC", and even more important in making development management work because of the way in which spatial plans are expressed. The leadership role is necessary to link broad strategic objectives to real schemes in particular places. Which bit of the guidance feels like ironic cake-eating ? Or how might we make it clearer?

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound dismissive of the efforts being made on behalf of elected members, as I wholeheartedly support the involvement of members in every step of the process. I am in fact ‘borrowing’ the Exeter documents as a basis for discussion within my own council. The point I’m trying to make rather badly, is that far too many members still view the committee as their first place of involvement in any planning application and use this as a reason to avoid any involvement at the earlier stages. This is partly due to the messages they have received, either when first joining their council or, at subsequent training events on the code of conduct or on the planning committee itself. The point I’m trying to get over, is that members need to be the ones who ultimately produce the procedure that allows them to be fully involved and comfortable with involvement in pre-application discussions. If members have it produced for them, there is a danger that they will still fail to grasp the opportunity to become fully involved, because they see it as a document of constraint. Conversely and worse still, some members may see it as a licence to become involved in ways that ultimately turn out to be completely inappropriate. Whilst the officers will always have to be the experts in producing the words, for any protocol to be a success and fully understood by those it applies to, it is vital that they are involved at every stage of its production and not just required to rubber stamp it at the end. Finally, and I don’t know how you get this message across, members need to understand what it means to be an advocate as opposed to a supporter or even objector. I sometimes find myself trying to help both planning and non-planning members understand the concept of speaking in the third party, so that they can raise the genuine concerns of the public, whilst at the same time not sounding as though they are against or for a proposal. Sorry, if that sounds condescending, but it is a fact that some members find it hard to detach themselves from discussions and because they are fearful of making remarks that can be seen as compromising their position, avoid involvement. It may be an area of general member development that needs further consideration.