I just wanted to let you know about a series of changes with regards to the way planning is dealt with in Merton that were made at the Council meeting last night.

Changes made

The Council administration through the Chair of Planning Committee, has proposed some reforms that amongst other things:

• Subsume the Borough Plan Advisory Committee, the group of councillors who reviews local planning rules to make recommendations for changes, into the Planning Committee. This will become the Development and Planning Applications Committee (DPAC), doing both jobs.
  
• Give the chair of the Planning Committee stronger powers to determine whether a planning application is considered by the full committee of councillors or whether it is decided by planning officers. At the moment there is a nearly automatic process that if a certain number of residents write in with comments, or a councillor makes a referral (sometimes called a ‘call-in’), the application is dealt with by the full committee of councillors in public.

Concerns were raised about these changes by Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Merton Park Residents Association councillors, but voted through by the Labour councillor majority. Last night’s debate can be watched on the Council’s YouTube channel – this link should take you to the relevant bit of the meeting.

Borough Plan Advisory Committee (BPAC)

We felt there was a real value in keeping a separate BPAC. The councillors on this committee build expertise in examining planning rules and, with an active chair, could genuinely engage with public opinion about where local planning rules needed work. For example, when I was a member of this committee, we worked with the Apostles Residents Association to look at potential ways to limit the number of ‘house to small-flat conversions’ on individual streets.

Appropriate heights and massing of buildings in areas is regularly raised by people, and yet Merton’s strategic planning rules in this area are vague. The “tall buildings” policy is 13 years old.

On the contrary, the planning committee meets more often and usually for longer than most other council committees. Is this new merged committee really going to have the time and inclination to look in depth at planning rules? We would also suggest that applying the rules is possibly a separate skill to developing them, certainly both skills are valuable!

Applications coming to full committee

As you will be aware, most planning applications are decided by planning officers alone.

When an application comes to the full committee, it will be recommended for approval by planning officers, who will have worked with a developer until they are happy to say it meets local planning rules.

Full committee is therefore a ‘last ditch’ opportunity for councillors to review and assess residents’ concerns on an application. Most applications that come to full committee are approved, and refusals of planning permission are certainly not in high enough numbers to be responsible for the housing shortage in the UK.

As mentioned above there are a number of reasons that an application will be considered by the full committee, not just officers. Two of those reasons being number of representations from residents, and referrals by councillors. These are pretty much ‘automatic’ ways for an application to come to full committee.

The changes made last night will give the chair of the new DPAC must greater discretion to decide if application will be heard by the full committee – indeed, he may be the sole arbiter. There’s a reference to developing protocols for such decisions, but the fundamental power will sit with the chair.

We feel this is potentially damaging because:

• It opens the possibility of perceived political involvement in deciding whether particular applications get to be considered in public by councillors on the full committee; and
  
• There’s no reflection on the value of representing people’s views and public involvement in this process – as a way of building confidence, and ensuring people feel they’ve had their say.

Conclusion

We feel these changes have been made with the best of intentions, but little-to-no reason has been given as to why they’re needed.

They also don’t command wide cross-party support in an area that is quasi-judicial.

Please do let us know your views and if you have any questions.