Pre-Application Advice in 
Kirklees 
Simon Taylor – Head of Development 
Management
General 
Direction of Travel 
• NPPF Paragraphs 188 – 195 
– Pre-Application 
Engagement and Front 
Loading 
• Planning Practice Guidance 
• Appeals – What behaviour 
may give rise to a substantive 
award against a local 
planning authority?– 
‘…refusing to enter into pre-application 
discussions…’ 
In Place to Assist 
• NPPG - Elected members are 
strongly encouraged to 
participate at the pre-application 
stage. S25 of the Localism Act 
2011 highlights the fact that 
elected members do not have a 
‘closed mind’ just because they 
have historically indicated a view 
on a matter relevant to the 
proposal. 
• S93 of the Local Government 
Act 2003 – Ability to Charge
Worthwhile Pre-application 
Engagement 
Phillipa Silcock 
19th June 2014 
www.pas.gov.uk
Leeds City Region Development 
Management Charter 
The Local Authority 
• Agree with the Developer a timetable and 
milestones for the application to deliver a 
decision in the shortest period of time 
practicable; 
• Set out requirements for consultation (internal 
and external) and work with the Developer to 
ensure appropriate pre application public 
consultation takes place; 
• Set out the Local Authority’s aspirations for any 
legal agreement and land transactions; 
• Maintain a regular dialogue with the developer 
and ensure changes required by either the local 
authority of the Developer are made promptly. 
The Developer 
• Engage in meaningful pre application discussions, 
with adequate time allowed for the preparation of 
essential information and assessment proposals, 
including appropriate community consultation 
• Respond within the agreed timescales to requests 
for further information and/or revisions 
• Attend project meetings with relevant persons 
• Submit a complete planning application with 
appropriate supporting information as agreed with 
the Council, including a draft legal agreement where 
appropriate.
Drivers and Objectives 
Drivers for Change 
• Public Service Cuts 
• Open for Business Agenda 
• Employer Surveys 
• Too many doors into the 
Council 
• Declining performance 
Objectives 
• Support Business and Jobs 
• Getting the Right Outcome 
• Open Relationship 
• Smoothing the technical issues 
• DM performance
Barriers to Change 
• Could we provide a good enough service 
• Convincing Staff 
• Public Perception
The Pre-App Offer in Kirklees 
Pre-2012 
• Website information 
• Validation Checklist 
• Full Duty Rota 
• Development Team 
Post 2012 
• Website information 
• Validation Checklist 
(updated) 
• Duty Officer – Limited 
days and pre-booked 
• Paid for Pre-Application 
Service
Majors Pre-Application Advice 
Old 
• Development Team approach 
• No ownership 
• Too long and resource 
intensive 
• Missed connections - Too 
DM focused 
• Free 
New 
• Combined approach with 
Regeneration Team 
• Smaller Development Team 
with targeted technical input 
• Bespoke – client led 
• Staff own it 
• Income
The Service 
• http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/business/pla 
nningapplications/advice.aspx#anchor2
The Process 
• Joint approach between Regeneration 
and Majors Team 
• Assess need and send them to the right 
place 
• Assign officer - consistency 
• Meeting and selective technical advice 
• Written Response from Head of Service
Practice 
• Be flexible with approach – but set out the ground 
rules 
• The relationship is often more important 
• Written response not always essential or wanted 
• Be sure to give advice - not the policy 
• Don’t let fee dominate
What is Working ? 
• Lots of success with medium sized businesses 
looking to relocate 
• Best when ward members are engaged 
• Longer term dialogue improved 
• Agreeing timescales – feeds into performance and 
PPA’s 
• Staff involved like it 
• Income stream
100 
90 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 
0 
DM Performance 
Does it work? 
% in Time 
With Extn of Time Agreement 
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Feedback 
• Peer Review Feedback - Customers who apply for planning consent 
told us that the Council’s planning officers were generally accessible, 
supportive and creative. Businesses reported that planning officers 
were working more closely with economic development and 
regeneration officers in an attempt to focus on growth. This reflects 
the increased prominence given in internal strategies and personal 
targets to staff working to support the Council’s jobs and growth 
priority.
Income 
• Worthwhile but will not bail you out 
• About ¾ of the cost of a planning officer 
post per year
Improvement Plan 
• Engaging with Members 
• Getting medium sized local agents to use 
it 
• How to front load more of the technical 
assessments without excessive time 
• Use of more sophisticated PPA’s 
• Review Fees
END
Others
Results 
82.9 
% Approvals 
79.6 
82.0 
83.7 
85.4 
81.2 
82.8 
84.3 
Positive Outcomes 
84.9 
85.8 
86.9 
83.8 
90.5 
89.1 
90.5 90.3 
86.6 
89.6 
90.1 90.1 
92.0 
90.0 
88.0 
86.0 
84.0 
82.0 
80.0 
78.0 
76.0 
74.0 
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Pre-Application Fees 
45000 
40000 
35000 
30000 
25000 
20000 
15000 
10000 
5000 
0 
Pre-Application Fees Collected (£) 
Pre-Application Fees Collected (£) 
Jul-12 Sep-12 Nov-12 Jan-13 Mar-13 May-13 Jul-13 Sep-13 Nov-13 Jan-14 Mar-14 May-14
Pre-Application Advice in Kirklees MBC
Pre-Application Advice in Kirklees MBC

Pre-Application Advice in Kirklees MBC

  • 1.
    Pre-Application Advice in Kirklees Simon Taylor – Head of Development Management
  • 2.
    General Direction ofTravel • NPPF Paragraphs 188 – 195 – Pre-Application Engagement and Front Loading • Planning Practice Guidance • Appeals – What behaviour may give rise to a substantive award against a local planning authority?– ‘…refusing to enter into pre-application discussions…’ In Place to Assist • NPPG - Elected members are strongly encouraged to participate at the pre-application stage. S25 of the Localism Act 2011 highlights the fact that elected members do not have a ‘closed mind’ just because they have historically indicated a view on a matter relevant to the proposal. • S93 of the Local Government Act 2003 – Ability to Charge
  • 3.
    Worthwhile Pre-application Engagement Phillipa Silcock 19th June 2014 www.pas.gov.uk
  • 4.
    Leeds City RegionDevelopment Management Charter The Local Authority • Agree with the Developer a timetable and milestones for the application to deliver a decision in the shortest period of time practicable; • Set out requirements for consultation (internal and external) and work with the Developer to ensure appropriate pre application public consultation takes place; • Set out the Local Authority’s aspirations for any legal agreement and land transactions; • Maintain a regular dialogue with the developer and ensure changes required by either the local authority of the Developer are made promptly. The Developer • Engage in meaningful pre application discussions, with adequate time allowed for the preparation of essential information and assessment proposals, including appropriate community consultation • Respond within the agreed timescales to requests for further information and/or revisions • Attend project meetings with relevant persons • Submit a complete planning application with appropriate supporting information as agreed with the Council, including a draft legal agreement where appropriate.
  • 5.
    Drivers and Objectives Drivers for Change • Public Service Cuts • Open for Business Agenda • Employer Surveys • Too many doors into the Council • Declining performance Objectives • Support Business and Jobs • Getting the Right Outcome • Open Relationship • Smoothing the technical issues • DM performance
  • 6.
    Barriers to Change • Could we provide a good enough service • Convincing Staff • Public Perception
  • 7.
    The Pre-App Offerin Kirklees Pre-2012 • Website information • Validation Checklist • Full Duty Rota • Development Team Post 2012 • Website information • Validation Checklist (updated) • Duty Officer – Limited days and pre-booked • Paid for Pre-Application Service
  • 8.
    Majors Pre-Application Advice Old • Development Team approach • No ownership • Too long and resource intensive • Missed connections - Too DM focused • Free New • Combined approach with Regeneration Team • Smaller Development Team with targeted technical input • Bespoke – client led • Staff own it • Income
  • 9.
    The Service •http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/business/pla nningapplications/advice.aspx#anchor2
  • 10.
    The Process •Joint approach between Regeneration and Majors Team • Assess need and send them to the right place • Assign officer - consistency • Meeting and selective technical advice • Written Response from Head of Service
  • 11.
    Practice • Beflexible with approach – but set out the ground rules • The relationship is often more important • Written response not always essential or wanted • Be sure to give advice - not the policy • Don’t let fee dominate
  • 12.
    What is Working? • Lots of success with medium sized businesses looking to relocate • Best when ward members are engaged • Longer term dialogue improved • Agreeing timescales – feeds into performance and PPA’s • Staff involved like it • Income stream
  • 13.
    100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 DM Performance Does it work? % in Time With Extn of Time Agreement Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
  • 14.
    Feedback • PeerReview Feedback - Customers who apply for planning consent told us that the Council’s planning officers were generally accessible, supportive and creative. Businesses reported that planning officers were working more closely with economic development and regeneration officers in an attempt to focus on growth. This reflects the increased prominence given in internal strategies and personal targets to staff working to support the Council’s jobs and growth priority.
  • 15.
    Income • Worthwhilebut will not bail you out • About ¾ of the cost of a planning officer post per year
  • 16.
    Improvement Plan •Engaging with Members • Getting medium sized local agents to use it • How to front load more of the technical assessments without excessive time • Use of more sophisticated PPA’s • Review Fees
  • 17.
  • 18.
  • 19.
    Results 82.9 %Approvals 79.6 82.0 83.7 85.4 81.2 82.8 84.3 Positive Outcomes 84.9 85.8 86.9 83.8 90.5 89.1 90.5 90.3 86.6 89.6 90.1 90.1 92.0 90.0 88.0 86.0 84.0 82.0 80.0 78.0 76.0 74.0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
  • 20.
    Pre-Application Fees 45000 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Pre-Application Fees Collected (£) Pre-Application Fees Collected (£) Jul-12 Sep-12 Nov-12 Jan-13 Mar-13 May-13 Jul-13 Sep-13 Nov-13 Jan-14 Mar-14 May-14