Solihull Council

The Website of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

Planning and Regulatory Committee Minutes

Date:
Wednesday, 9th April, 2008
Time:
18.00
Place:
Civic Suite, Committee Room 1
 

Attendance Details

Item Description Decision
Public
01 DECLARATION OF INTEREST
 There were no declarations of interest.
02 QUESTIONS AND DEPUTATIONS
 There were no questions or deputations.
03 MINUTES OF 17 JANUARY 2008
Preamble
RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting held on 17th January 2008 be agreed as a correct record.
04 DETERMINATION OF LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES - DELEGATION ARRANGEMENTS
Preamble
RESOLVED
To confirm that the current delegation arrangements for applications under Sections 191 and 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should continue on the basis of determination by the Head of Design and Development in consultation with the Chief Executive, with the provision that where representations are on appropriate grounds, applications be determined by the Planning Sub Committee.
05 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Preamble
RESOLVED
The Committee recommended to:
(i) Adopt the Local Validation Criteria as the basis for validating planning applications; and
(ii) Delegate authority to the Head of Design and Development to make minor changes to the criteria and/or thresholds and to inform the Committee of such changes.
06 INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLERS IN NEW AND EXTENDED SCHOOLS
Preamble
RESOLVED
The Planning and Regulatory Committee noted:
(i) The lack of a mandatory legislative requirement in National Building Regulations to fit sprinkler protection in educational building Regulation to fit sprinkler protection in educational buildings
(ii) The Council's policy of fitting of fire sprinklers in all new schools, and
(iii) The Council's policy of fitting of fire sprinklers in major extensions to schools, where the fire risk-assessment and cost-benefit analysis support their installation
07 PLANNING APPEALS OCTOBER 2007 - MARCH 2008
Preamble
RESOLVED
That this report be noted.
08 MANUAL FOR STREETS
Preamble
The report was submitted for information

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillors S Davis (Chairman), K Allsopp, J Bramham, D Cornock, A Martin, G W Morgan, Mrs S Pittaway, K Rushen, J Windmill, H M Cox(Substitute)
Officers:
Gary Palmer, Head of Design and Development
Piers Cockroft, Transport Policy Officer
Emily Walsh, Transport Planner/Engineer
Marcus Hirst, Solicitor
Joseph Bright, Democratic Services Officer
Apologies for absence:
Councillors I Hedley, A Hill and T Hodgson submitted their apologies

Preamble

ItemPreamble
03The Panel received the minutes of the meeting held on 17th January 2008.
04The Head of Design and Development presented the report and outlined the need to review the current delegation arrangements. He explained how the current scheme delegated decisions on applications to himself in consultation with the Chief Executive. Where Members had raised a significant number of objections regarding an application for a certificate, officers have referred the matter to committee to determine.

The Head of Design and Development highlighted that the practise of referring back a delegated matter to Committee had been subjected to criticism by the Local Government Ombudsman, who concluded that this process of determining the certificate had left the Council in a vulnerable position. He also noted that in the majority of authorities, these applications were not referred to Committee, rather they were dealt with by Officers under delegated powers.
Members expressed concern at all lawful development certificates being delegated to Officers and stated that the current practise should continue - i.e. where a number of Members make representations, the application be referred to the Planning Sub Committee. They emphasised this was importance to ensure they remained accountable to their electors.
05The Head of Design and Development presented the report, which informed Members of the outcome of a consultation exercise on the draft list of local requirements. He also sought formal approval and adoption of the final revised version.
06Members were informed of the legislative requirements for the provision of sprinkler protection in educational buildings and the Council's policy in respect of sprinklers in new or extended schools in the borough. It was noted that Schools have a very low basic life risk compared to buildings such as hotels and residential care homes where there is a sleeping risk. As a result there was no mandatory building regulation requirement to fit sprinklers in schools.
Members expressed surprise and concern at the lack of a mandatory requirement to fit sprinklers in schools. They queried whether resolution (iii) could be referred back to the Cabinet Member, with the removal of ‘and cost-benefit analysis support their installation.' Members stated that the installation of sprinklers should take place in all major extensions of schools, irrespective of cost-benefit analysis.
07The Head of Design and Development presented the report, which summarised the position with regard to planning appeals for the period from October 2007 to March 2008. He explained that a total of 39 new appeals were submitted in the 5 and a half month period from 1st October 2007 to mid-March 2008.
Members were informed that in Solihull 60% of S78 appeals were dismissed in the last quarter of 2007, which falls a little short of the national average and Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) of 65% dismissed. Members queried this emphasis upon national averages and questioned the value of this BVPI, as it failed to take into account individual circumstances within Solihull. The Head of Design and Development noted there were proposals for this statistic to be removed as a performance indicator.
08The Transport Planner and Transport Policy Officer conducted a presentation informing Members of the adoption of Manual for Streets (MFS), which had previously been accepted by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Regeneration as well as the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Infrastructure.

The Officers explained that the guidance had been published as there was a recognition that residential streets were often dominated by vehicles and failed to make a positive contribution to people's lives. They also detailed that the aims of MFS was to transform the quality of urban streets and to ensure that street design took into account the needs of all users, rather than simply being seen as conduits for movement. The Officer explained that MFS stressed the importance of connected networks as well as safety.

Members noted that Officers had emphasised connected networks and expressed concern that such street design could be used as cut throughs, potentially creating safety problems. They also highlighted the problems that could arise where streets were connected by walkways, where anti social behaviour could arise.

The Officers emphasised the importance of street design, where the location of buildings, trees and lighting could encourage pedestrians and help reduce crime. They also detailed how the guidance emphasised using grid based designs, where pedestrians and vehicles could use a variety of routes and prevent streets being used as cut throughs. The Officers also explained that MFS recommended moving away from long-through roads through the location of buildings as well as streets.

Members queried whether new applications would have to meet any criteria set out in Manual for Streets. The Officers confirmed that MFS has been used as a reason to support refusals against planning applications.
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
Solihull Connect, Library Square, Solihull West Midlands B91 3RG UK
0121 704 6000
Download our vcard

Learn how to customise this site to meet your own accessibility needs