Q1. How suitable do you feel the proposed scales of fees are for the different levels of pre-application planning advice offered? The fees proposed seem...

Very unreasonable

Q2. What impact do you think introducing charges for pre-application advice will have on the service you receive? I think the service will become...

Around the same quality

Q3. How likely are you to pay for pre-application advice based on the proposed fees? I would be...

Very unlikely

Q4. What could potentially prevent you from wanting to pay for the Council's pre-application advice service?

As I would only be likely ever to make a householder's application, the charge is too high.

Q5. If charges are introduced, when seeking pre-application advice, you would be:

Much less likely

Q6. Do you have any other comments about the proposals for charging for pre-application planning advice or other aspects of the Charter?

(The following text was previously uploaded as a pdf with request for the text to be made available online. I was sent an email confirming receipt and having clicked 'confirm comment' was told my comment would be displayed on Commonplace. As this hasn't happened, I'm resubmitting by comments below.) Comments on Liveable Exeter Placemaking Charter Consultation The fact that the invitation expressed in the first paragraph on the Council’s relevant website page, under the comprehensive title ‘Liveable Exeter Placemaking Charter Consultation’, immediately reduces the scope of comments to those ‘with a significant focus on the introduction of charges for pre-application planning advice’, is bemusing. The fact that this significant focus turns out to be the sole focus of the consultation framework, increases concern. Furthermore, the website’s introductory paragraph claims the Council seeks ‘feedback from developers, planning agents, architects, community groups, and other stakeholders’. If this were a comprehensive and genuine consultation of the Charter as a whole, Exeter St James Community Trust would have been pleased to have been invited as one such community group with a deep interest in planning matters and the development of the City, especially our statutory neighbourhood area. Were any community groups individually notified of the consultation with an invitation to respond? The Trust has learnt by chance, and not till the final weekend, of this consultation. Is there going to be a consultation on the charter as a whole? As the consultation questions all appear to be of relevance only for those who are in the business of coming up with development proposals, with the Council keen to find out their reaction to the proposed charges and the likelihood that they would be willing to pay for the advice, I do wonder whether feedback from community groups is genuinely sought? However, in the spirit of collaborative engagement, always keen to offer a community perspective, I would offer the following points instead of responses to the questions posed. I have been present at a number of Planning Committee meetings since 2016 where developers / their agents have been highly critical of the advice they have received when a decision has been to refuse an application on grounds that, according to the developer, had not been pointed out to them during the pre-app discussions. Although I understand that applicants are advised that approval does not automatically follow adherence to pre-application advice, clearly this is a natural expectation. If substantial charges are to be levied for advice which is promoted as being more comprehensive and thorough than currently, with high quality input from a range of professionals, this expectation is bound to increase. It therefore seems likely that the pressure will be great on planning officers to provide such advice that where proposals adhering fully to this are formally submitted, approval is virtually a formality. This begs the questions, ‘Whose responsibility is it to make the final decision re permission?’ ‘What part should relevant Ward councillors and Planning Committee play?’ and ‘Is more than lip-service to be given to application responses from consultees and the general public?’ I fear that the Charter will lead to Planning Committee being given nothing more than a rubber-stamping role, and public consultation confirmed as a meaningless exercise in Exeter. There have been examples of applications refused by Planning Committee despite recommendations for approval by officers. The Heavitree Road Police Station PBSA and co-living development is one such example which was subsequently appealed. That the Inspector agreed with Planning Committee’s decision shows the importance of the elected members having their meaningful say, too, as officers don’t always get it right. The Charter states: ‘Exeter City Council is committed to delivering a high-quality planning service and create thriving communities. ’ and that ‘Our aim is to build positive working relationships based on transparency and accountability. By working together, we can ensure the planning process delivers sustainable growth and enables thriving communities.’ These claims are lofty and laudable, but sadly they currently would be seen as mere rhetoric from the perspective of former Exeter St James Forum Steering Group Members (who originally worked constructively and in a trusting collaboration with the LPA to develop our neighbourhood plan), and of Exeter St James Community Trust, (which was set up by the Forum to take forward the projects identified by the community to improve the neighbourhood and mitigate the impacts of development, and latterly to continue monitoring and defending the Neighbourhood Plan). I appreciate the unmanageable workload under which Exeter’s depleted team of planning officers operates, but the level of trust and confidence in the LPA to deliver on its stated commitment to create and enable thriving communities, or to build positive working relationships with community groups, based on transparency and accountability, is at an all-time low. Examples of actions that have contributed to this include: • The repeated failure between Jan and Mar 2023, in the Director’s Report of one highly significant application, even after it was pointed out, to recognise the Neighbourhood Plan as a statutory component of Exeter’s Development Plan and to fail to give any consideration to the concerns of the Forum as a statutory consultee in the Report presented to Planning Committee; • Planning officers advising at the pre-application stage that the principal of PBSA development on a specific site was supported, while failing to draw attention of the developer to Neighbourhood Plan policies of great significance and with which officers would have known the community would have considered such development non-compliant; • A comment from a developer that he had been advised not to discuss proposals with the Forum or Trust at the pre-application stage because we would not support development of PBSA on a particular site; • Whereas in the early years after the NP was made, planning officers regularly sought pre-application discussion with the Forum over more significant proposals, and always encouraged developers to make contact and seek our views at an early stage, this has ceased in recent years despite the NPPF guidance expecting this; • The very recent decision by planning officers to exercise delegated power to approve a VOC application, ignoring the assurance given to Planning Committee by the senior planning officer at the time of the original application's determination, that any amendment to the ground floor commercial units of a large PBSA would be brought back to Committee. This could not be excused as an oversight to check the records, as the Trust’s response to the VOC application alerted the case officer to the relevant Minute; • The outcome of the recent judicial review with the Judge ruling that Planning Committee had been misled by the planning officer. I note that the Foreword of the Charter states that Exeter Design Quality Partnership includes community groups, and the first key aim of the EDQP is ‘To bring together everyone involved in shaping the future of the city, including the City Council, Devon County Council, landowners, developers, designers, local communities, and government agencies. ’ but on p6 where all involved are invited to sign up to the principles, it turns out that these are clearly aimed squarely at developers and their agents. So how exactly are community groups to be involved? Has this been thought through at all? I can’t see how community groups slot into the list of EDQP tools. I would love to think that the Council was genuine about community involvement, transparency and accountability, but a major shift seems to be required if the rhetoric is to become reality.

Q1. How suitable do you feel the proposed scales of fees are for the different levels of pre-application planning advice offered? The fees proposed seem...

Somewhat unreasonable

Q2. What impact do you think introducing charges for pre-application advice will have on the service you receive? I think the service will become...

Slightly higher quality

Q3. How likely are you to pay for pre-application advice based on the proposed fees? I would be...

Very unlikely

Q4. What could potentially prevent you from wanting to pay for the Council's pre-application advice service?

It should be clear whether the fees apply to householders wanting to plan an extension, or only for large scale developments. If the latter then what is the definition for allocating the two categories. There needs to be a category between level 0 level 1 particularly for small scale developments.

Q5. If charges are introduced, when seeking pre-application advice, you would be:

Much less likely

Q6. Do you have any other comments about the proposals for charging for pre-application planning advice or other aspects of the Charter?

Notable that the community involvement only applies to the EDQP and the design review panel. There appears to be no community oversight of the developers' panel. What are the arrangements for the community to be elected? appointed? to the panels with community involvement? What oversight will be provided for the Developers' Panel? Will it operate independently of the Planning Committee? If the DP has encouraged a development will the Planning Committee be obliged to approve the planning application? What will be the terms of reference for how the different panels operate, to ensure that the democratic process of approval of planning applications isn't undermined? Will the Developers' Panel have minutes that are published on the Council website? Will it be another of the secretive Boards, with all matters such as the terms of reference, membership, agendas and minutes kept secret? Punctuation please: developers' panel, unless you only want to consult one developer. Page 8: what is LPA?

Q1. How suitable do you feel the proposed scales of fees are for the different levels of pre-application planning advice offered? The fees proposed seem...

Very unreasonable

Q2. What impact do you think introducing charges for pre-application advice will have on the service you receive? I think the service will become...

Around the same quality

Q3. How likely are you to pay for pre-application advice based on the proposed fees? I would be...

Somewhat likely

Q4. What could potentially prevent you from wanting to pay for the Council's pre-application advice service?

Any uncertainty on officer resourcing and timescales for the response may affect take up. If charging is introduced it must be supported by a clear framework setting out timescales and what is covered by the different service levels.

Q5. If charges are introduced, when seeking pre-application advice, you would be:

No more or less likely

Q6. Do you have any other comments about the proposals for charging for pre-application planning advice or other aspects of the Charter?

The fee jump from Level 0 to Level 1 is too great - we would strongly recommend additional levels of service and fees reflecting different types and scales of application. For example householder, listed building consent, change of use, minor, small major, large major etc to better reflect the range of advice that may be sought. If PPA are to be used a framework for charges would be helpful.

Q1. How suitable do you feel the proposed scales of fees are for the different levels of pre-application planning advice offered? The fees proposed seem...

Somewhat unreasonable

Q2. What impact do you think introducing charges for pre-application advice will have on the service you receive? I think the service will become...

Slightly higher quality

Q3. How likely are you to pay for pre-application advice based on the proposed fees? I would be...

Somewhat unlikely

Q4. What could potentially prevent you from wanting to pay for the Council's pre-application advice service?

Disproportionate fees - refer Q6. below.

Q5. If charges are introduced, when seeking pre-application advice, you would be:

Slightly less likely

Q6. Do you have any other comments about the proposals for charging for pre-application planning advice or other aspects of the Charter?

Pre-Application Charging: Arguably, we have been excessively fortunate to have benefited from a free of charge pre-application advice service from ECC for so long and in my experience it has generally proved to be of high quality. Arguably, it may have become a victim of its own success and it is certainly not unreasonable to seek to make a charge going forwards particularly given this is now the case with the majority of other LPA's in the region. The basis for charging inevitably varies between Authorities and some charging schedules are possibly over complicated. The current ECC proposal is simple and taken in the context of only relatively major development proposals would appear absolutely fine and proportionate. HOWEVER, I consider it is highly problematic when it comes to proposals of a much more modest scale, where proportionality in relation to the applicable formal application fees would become non-existent. When it comes to 'Householder' development, small scale Listed Building proposals and single new dwellings and even very small scale multi-unit residential development schemes, the likes of Teignbridge, East Devon and Mid Devon Councils all offer a range of service options with associated fees typically within the range £200-500 which I would consider proportionate. I appreciate that small but complex and sensitivity Listed Building proposal could likely require more Officer time than a proportionate fee would on paper cover, but I cannot foresee a prospective applicant in this category being prepared to expend a four figure sum on pre-application advice when a formal application would only cost a few hundred pounds and neither would it be reasonable to expect them to. The currently proposed 'Level 0' service would be fine for a 'scoping' exercise in relation to a medium or large development proposal, but, whilst the level of fee would be reasonable for a 'small' development proposal the associated level of service would be insufficient to be meaningful. Whilst it would clearly complicate the simplicity of the currently suggested 3-tier service offer, I believe it is going to be essential to have a related stand alone schedule of services with proportionate charges for smaller scale proposals which the present 'one-size-fits-all' service basis cannot reasonably accommodate. If this cannot be achieved, I can only foresee that the level of pre-application engagement for small development proposals will plummet and the perception will be that ECC is only really interested in engaging with larger developers. Clearly larger developments inevitably have a greater impact for the city and its community and also offer greater scope for public and environmental benefit and so do deserve to be the focus of Officer time, but hopefully this need not be to the detriment of the consultation offer available for smaller scale development. I, for one, remain keen to maintain the level of informal consultation I and my clients have benefited from throughout my career to date and so I really hope the currently proposed basis for a new chargeable pre-application advice service can be modified to facilitate this. T. Williamson RIBA

Q1. How suitable do you feel the proposed scales of fees are for the different levels of pre-application planning advice offered? The fees proposed seem...

Somewhat unreasonable

Q2. What impact do you think introducing charges for pre-application advice will have on the service you receive? I think the service will become...

Around the same quality

Q3. How likely are you to pay for pre-application advice based on the proposed fees? I would be...

Neither likely nor unlikely

Q4. What could potentially prevent you from wanting to pay for the Council's pre-application advice service?

Leading times, officer allocated to case, quality of advice received, availability of other independent panels with lower fees.

Q5. If charges are introduced, when seeking pre-application advice, you would be:

No more or less likely