The Planning Consultant introduced the report which set out the introduction of charges for amendments to undetermined applications in accordance with the fee schedule as set out in Appendix I, the revised pre-application and post-decision advice fee schedule as set out in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the Appendix II, the fee schedule for Planning Performance Agreements as set out in Table 5 of Appendix III, the Member Protocol for pre-application and pre-decision developer engagement as set out in Appendix IV, and the fees for monitoring biodiversity net gain in accordance with the fee schedule as set out in Appendix V of the report.

The Chair invited Members to make comments, and these included:

·      It was important the Council charged the correct amounts, however did not understand why the Council were only accepting one round of amendments;

·      there needed to be a different approach to the pre-application advice pricing as anything above 50 houses was the same price and considered that applications that were significantly above 50 homes should be charged more;

·      the Member protocol needed to be considered properly by the Planning and Transportation Policy Working Group (PTPWG);

·      Appendix I showed the strategic developments with a proposed fee of £1,000, the Highsted Park application was submitted four times, what fee would the applicant be charged?;

·      £1,000 was too low for large developments when they made an amendment as this did not cover the officers time in processing the amendments;

·      larger applications should be charged more, however for some residents having to pay extra for such small amendments could make it difficult for them;

·      concerned with householder applications and some of the honest mistakes people made when making an application;

·      the strategic major fee on page 45 could be increased to £2,500 and the three householders fee be reduced to £50 each;

·      the planning working group needed to work together and discuss improvements to the planning committee and the way it worked to improve it for the borough;

·      concerned that parish councils in the Local Government Review were potentially looking at the fees and charges set out in this report and would be deterred from taking on community assets that needed work;

·      section 5 of the report did not mention any consultation with Members;

·      a task and finish group was needed for the report to be properly discussed;

·      Members did not have advanced notice of the report coming forward; and

·      it was clear that it needed further discussion.

The Planning Consultant responded to points raised explaining that one round of amendments was an attempt to try and encourage applicants to go through the pre-application advice route first to get better developments from the start. Officers were aware that some consultee responses took a while, so they had included a caveat to allow for further amendments beyond the recommended amount, as set within the process, should the Council consider it was in its best interest to do so. She pointed Members to table 4, on page 55-58, and said the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57