A Thanet council committee will discuss huge changes to how planning applications are dealt with when new rules come into effect on October 31.
Under new Government rules, there will be restrictions on the type of application that can be brought to planning committee.
Applications will be split into schedule one and schedule two categories.
Decisions for schedule one applications will be made by officers and cannot go to committee.
Schedule 1 applications include householder planning applications, minor Residential applications (1–9 units on sites) minor commercial applications, reserved matters applications for schemes less than 500 units and a number of other types of permission/applications.
Schedule 2 applications will also be delegated to officers unless a Nominated Member and Nominated Officer agree that the case meets the statutory thresholds.
Schedule 2 examples include major residential developments, commercial developments, listed building consents and any applications that are made by or on behalf of a Local Authority, a member of that Local Authority or an entity owned or controlled by the Local Authority
These can be reported to the planning committee if the application raises: one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area, or one or more significant planning matters having regard to one or more significant planning matters having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations.
However, it is expected the applications will only be deferred to committee in ‘exceptional’ cases.
Ward councillors will no longer be able to ‘call in’ applications and applications will also not be referred to Committee following a set number of public objections.
The council must have a designated officer and councillor who will discuss any referred applications and will need to agree for it to be reported to the Planning Committee. If they can’t agree then it automatically is deferred to officer decision.
Planning committees must have no more than 13 councillors, and authorities are encouraged to consider smaller committees for more effective decision-making.
The government says the aim behind the national scheme of delegation is to ensure that there is greater clarity and consistency about the role of planning committees in planning decision making. It says committees should focus on the key proposals that matter to an area, enabling other, often more minor and technical, decisions to be made by planning officers.
The changes will come into effect on 31st October.
Last year a motion brought to council by Cllr Helen Crittenden, who is TDC’s chair of planning, said: “This proposal would remove the right of councillors in Thanet to call in any application on behalf of themselves or residents and mean that the majority of decisions will be made by officers without any public hearing.
“While officers already determine the majority of applications, for practical reasons, this is because they are delegated to do so by councillors, who can intervene to bring them to committee.
“Under the proposed arrangements, ultimate control would transfer from elected councillors who make decisions in public to officials who necessarily do so in private.
“Applicants would retain the right of appeal against refusal to the planning inspectorate, however residents generally would lose their right to request consideration by planning committee prior to the council’s decision being confirmed, whether that decision is for approval or refusal.
“This council recognises the contribution to economic growth that is made by an efficient planning process and the risk of some councillors choosing to make arguments at public meetings that have no practical validity in planning law for performative purposes and voting accordingly.
“However, it strongly believes that transparency and local democracy are essential to planning and that these require decision-makers to be accountable to the electorate and the public’s voice to be heard.”
The changes, which are compulsory, will be discussed at a constitutional review meeting on Wednesday (September 2).
Labour cllr disagrees with Labour government policy! Where does Thanet’s Labour MP stand on this issue?
Any way the wind blows I suspect
Yes, there’s no way the likes of Billington, Whitehead and the Brights will speak out against it.
It is the Constitutional Review Committee, on the grounds that the constitution needs to be updated to take account of the procedural changes brought about because of the legal changes. The actual legal changes can no longer be objected to.
So you don’t actually object to the new rules? Thanks for clarifying that you’re as bad as the others.
You have misinterpreted my words, which were deliberately ‘neutral’. Not least because I am a member of the Constitutional Review Committee that meets this week and I cannot pre-empt the debate that will occur. It is a matter of record in the report above that I objected before the legal changes were made. My opinon has not changed. Instead, despite my opinion, the law has changed. The opportunity to object and prevent the changes has passed. Now our only choice is we either follow the law or we don’t. As a staturory body the council is obliged to obey the law. As councillors we are bound to be a part of ensuring the council operates legally. If we don’t implement legal changes that affect local services there will be consequences that cost the taxpaper. Which is the same as I said above, but with more words.
Did Ms. Billington object? Did you ask her to?
She’s a minister so therefore has to tow the government line.
I can see this causing trouble and to be fair, one need only look at the dystopia that is Westwood cross to doubt the abilities of Thanet’s planning officers.
The idea is to speed things up,but even if they did, would more houses of the right sort get built?
The NIMBYism that is displayed on even the smallest development doesn’t help.
We need more social homes now, not in 10 or 20 years, and they should be quality,resilient productions, not the poor quality identikit housing we see now.
It would be better all round if planning with full.public participation dealt only with the design and what they call sense of place,In other words what the site will look like and how many units.All the other stuff like where the drains are or how many will be affordable or s106 etc is best left to the officers. However, once agreed,the design stays as is, and can’t be altered, so there is none of the shenanigans developers employ to chisel more value out of a site.No going back for more, like bears after honey.
And look here Checksfield keep a civil tongue in your head, because again you are dissing women.As far as I can see, decades of Tory rule, your default political party, and don’t give me any of that hog wash about you being a green,allowed Westwood Cross and all the other beastly developments in Thanet to be built, so I don’t think you have a leg to stand on.
No, I’m dissing local Labour politicians, including the rather masculine-looking Kristian Bright… and as I’ve never driven a car, haven’t produced any off-spring, and am largely vegetarian, I’ve probably done more to protect the planet than you have. As for “towing the party line”, no she does NOT have to do that. If that was the case with all of them, Starmer would still be PM.
If these changes are compulsory what is the point of a meeting?
As TDC will be dissolved in 2028 there is zero point of wasting time on a meeting anyway
It’s as pointless as their meeting to declare a “Climate Emergency”, and just a distraction from them actually doing work like ensuring we’re getting our bins emptied and our streets cleaned.
The committee meeting is that of the Constitutional Review Committee. The point of the meeting is that the Council’s constitution has to be changed in order to implement the legal changes. Even though TDC will be dissolved in 2028 we still need to have a valid constitution up to that point.
Hopefully the original article can be changed to reflect the name and purpose of the committee that will be meeting.
Everyone needs a hobby.
I see it as a positive change, going forward the standard of potential councillors maybe raised, in all parties. Less opportunities for corruption and bribery, because individuals will know they cannot influence planning decisions for their own personal gain or favour, by third parties. Another point, people are always comparing online the UK to China, and how fast construction projects get delivered in the Peoples Republic of China. This is a massive step in that direction. Anything, that removes local corruption has to be welcomed.
What makes you so convinced that there’s no corrupt council officers?
TLDR: We will remove the right of anyone to reject frivolous building projects and cancel any council oversight diligence. To hell with the woeful remaining green spaces.
Fixed it for you.
People moaning are the same ones that voted this clown party in 🤣🤣
Reap what you sow!
I think this is a particularly nasty piece of legislation which significantly weakens the ability of residents and us as elected councillors to influence planning decisions.
From 31 October, new Government rules will mean that whole categories of planning applications must be decided by officers and cannot be brought before the Planning Committee. For other applications, the presumption will also be officer determination, with referral to committee only in exceptional circumstances where restrictive, arguably narrow, statutory criteria are satisfied.
Of most concern, our existing ability as ward councillors to ‘call in’ an application goes out the window, as will arrangements whereby significant numbers of residents objecting can trigger consideration by the Planning Committee.
The Government describes this as making the planning system faster and more consistent. I see it very differently. Power is being transferred away from residents and their democratically elected representatives towards a centralised and unaccountable officer led planning system.
I also wonder whether there is another factor at work.
AI and freely available online information are rapidly democratising the planning system. Residents are now empowered and can research planning law, local plans, previous decisions and material planning considerations in a way which, not very long ago, might have required thousands of pounds spent on planning consultants, surveyors and lawyers.
For the first time ever ordinary residents were considerably better equipped to exercise their democratically given rights to challenge developers and councils. I believe that this control freak government’s response to a better informed public has been to reduce the opportunities available to them to have those arguments heard by elected representatives.
It is anti democratic and stinks of authoritarianism.
To be clear about what Thanet District Council is doing here: this is essentially a compulsory constitutional housekeeping exercise. The Council has to amend its procedures to comply with national legislation. If it doesn’t, planning decisions could potentially be challenged in the courts.
So whatever anyone’s political persuasion locally, we should recognise where responsibility lies.
These powers are being taken away from citizens nationally. Thanet cannot simply vote to keep them.
I believe that represents a significant erosion of local democracy and residents’ rights in the planning process and one that deserves far more public attention than it has received. People voted for an authoritarian socialist government and that is what we now have to live with – until the next general Election, at least.
There is a wider issue here about ordinary people actually being able to exercise the rights that Parliament supposedly gives us.
I have some experience of this through my own involvement in the BA149 litigation against British Airways and the UK Government. Changes to the way major civil claims can be funded have made access to justice extraordinarily difficult for ordinary individuals taking on defendants with almost unlimited resources. We had to find an innovative funding solution simply to make our case financially possible.
The Post Office litigation demonstrated just how important litigation funding can be. Without the ability to finance that group action, Alan Bates and hundreds of subpostmasters could never have taken on a powerful institution with the resources of the Post Office. Their legal rights would have existed on paper only.
Then came the 2023 PACCAR judgment, which caused enormous uncertainty over litigation funding arrangements. To be fair, that was a Supreme Court interpretation of existing legislation rather than something this Government introduced, and Government now proposes legislation to address it.
But it reinforces something I have become increasingly concerned about through personal experience – that a right that an ordinary person cannot afford to enforce isn’t much of a right at all. It’s precisely why these planning changes bother me so much.
Technology is suddenly giving ordinary people access to information and expertise that previously required expensive lawyers, consultants and other professionals. It is beginning to level the playing field where ordinary folk can exercise their rights against the rich and powerful.
I don’t know whether Government is uncomfortable with that democratisation of knowledge and I can’t prove that it has anything to do with these planning changes.
But having experienced first-hand just how difficult our legal system can make it for ordinary people to challenge powerful institutions, I think it is entirely reasonable to be suspicious whenever Government starts removing mechanisms through which ordinary citizens can challenge decisions affecting them.
This removal of power from ordinary citizens is pure tyranny and the reversal of centuries of hard won rights for UK citizens.