Changing in the weighting of Policy H10 and H11 of the LLP.

John Hanlon made this Freedom of Information request to Liverpool City Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by Liverpool City Council.

Dear Liverpool City Council,

On Tuesday, 26 June 2018 the Planning Committee sat and discussed the implementation of the Policy Weighting in the emerging plan (“LLP”). This matter was number 34 on the printed minutes and Agenda number 16 in the Public reports pack. Attached to this pack is a report on the weighting of policies by Nick Kavanagh (Director – Regeneration & Employment Services).

In the report two particular policies are discussed in detail, these being Policy H10 and H11 respectively. The report states that;

“Those policies do not carry full weight before adoption, but the Head of Planning considers that, in this particular case, the age of the existing development plan, the fact that the emerging plan has now been submitted for examination and has been the subject of recent consultation which resulted in an absence of relevant objections to the policies in question means that, failure to comply with those emerging policies outweighs compliance with the relevant existing policies in the UDP”.

For Policy is H10 the report submitted goes onto state that;

“Application of standards for HMO’s, flat conversions and bedsits in connection with Policy H10 - Conversion of Dwellings and Buildings As is detailed above, there are a number of policies that are now considered to carry significant weight so as to outweigh an application’s compliance with the relevant existing policies in the UDP. One of such policy relates to the conversion of dwellings and buildings, Policy H10…..... To ensure a joined up approach with HMO Licensing, it is proposed that all planning applications for HMO’s use the spatial standards contained within “Guidance on Standards and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation” for the purposes of assessing minimum room size, as per Part 1.c of the policy. The only exception would relate to lounge room sizes which are clearly defined at 2.b within the policy itself. It would be safe at Judicial Review if the appropriate standard is used by officers or committee for that purpose (provided it is not blindly followed and is open to be departed from, where deemed appropriate, as with any policy), but equally it will not bind a planning inspector so they may choose a different standard or determine their own”.

The matter was resolved by the Committee members that on this date and hence forth that these policies would now carry ‘significant weight’.

We know through planning applications that these policies were still being given significant weight intermittently up until May 2019 and that the planning Inspectorate made comments about these policies on the 7th December 2018.

From this will you please answer the following questions?

1. Why was the planning Department changing the weighting of policies H10 and H11 of the LLP from application to application from the 26th June 2018 up to 3rd May 2019?

2. When was it resolved by the Planning Committee that Policy H10 and H11 of the LLP should no longer carry ‘significant weight’?

3. Why was Nick Kavanagh’s report to the Committee never updated after the Inspectorate's comments on 7th December 2018 , if he and the Head of Planning considered policy H10 and H11 of the LLP to now carry only ‘limited weight’?

4. Does the Head of Planning have the power to cast aside the statutory UDP in favour of a emerging plan that has not been made sound by Central Government Inspectors?

Yours faithfully,

John Hanlon

Liverpool City Council

 
Dear John Hanlon
 
Freedom of Information Act 2000
 
Thank you for your request for information that was received on 15 October
2019 concerning Dear Liverpool City Council,

On Tuesday, 26 June 2018 the Planning Committee sat and discussed the
implementation of the Policy Weighting in the emerging plan ('LLP'). This
matter was number 34 on the printed minutes and Agenda number 16 in the
Public reports pack. Attached to this pack is a report on the weighting of
policies by Nick Kavanagh (Director ' Regeneration & Employment Services).

In the report two particular policies are discussed in detail, these being
Policy H10 and H11 respectively. The report states that;

'Those policies do not carry full weight before adoption, but the Head of
Planning considers that, in this particular case, the age of the existing
development plan, the fact that the emerging plan has now been submitted
for examination and has been the subject of recent consultation which
resulted in an absence of relevant objections to the policies in question
means that, failure to comply with those emerging policies outweighs
compliance with the relevant existing policies in the UDP'.

For Policy is H10 the report submitted goes onto state that;

'Application of standards for HMO's, flat conversions and bedsits in
connection with Policy H10 - Conversion of Dwellings and Buildings As is
detailed above, there are a number of policies that are now considered to
carry significant weight so as to outweigh an application's compliance
with the relevant existing policies in the UDP. One of such policy relates
to the conversion of dwellings and buildings, Policy H10…..... To ensure a
joined up approach with HMO Licensing, it is proposed that all planning
applications for HMO's use the spatial standards contained within
'Guidance on Standards and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation'
for the purposes of assessing minimum room size, as per Part 1.c of the
policy. The only exception would relate to lounge room sizes which are
clearly defined at 2.b within the policy itself. It would be safe at
Judicial Review if the appropriate standard is used by officers or
committee for that purpose (provided it is not blindly followed and is
open to be departed from, where deemed appropriate, as with any policy),
but equally it will not bind a planning inspector so they may choose a
different standard or determine their own'.

The matter was resolved by the Committee members that on this date and
hence forth that these policies would now carry 'significant weight'.

We know through planning applications that these policies were still being
given significant weight intermittently up until May 2019 and that the
planning Inspectorate made comments about these policies on the 7th
December 2018.

From this will you please answer the following questions?

1. Why was the planning Department changing the weighting of policies H10
and H11 of the LLP from application to application from the 26th June 2018
up to 3rd May 2019?

2. When was it resolved by the Planning Committee that Policy H10 and H11
of the LLP should no longer carry 'significant weight'?

3. Why was Nick Kavanagh's report to the Committee never updated after the
Inspectorate's comments on 7th December 2018 , if he and the Head of
Planning considered policy H10 and H11 of the LLP to now carry only
'limited weight'?

4. Does the Head of Planning have the power to cast aside the statutory
UDP in favour of a emerging plan that has not been made sound by Central
Government Inspectors?

Yours faithfully,

John Hanlon...
 
We are dealing with your request under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 and we aim to send a response by 12 November 2019.
 
In some case, a fee may be payable. If we decide a fee is payable, we will
send you a fee notice and we will require you to pay the fee before
proceeding with your request.
 
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 may restrict the release of some or
all of the information you have requested. We will carry out an assessment
and if any exemptions apply to some or all of the information then we
might not provide that information to you. We will inform you if this is
the case and advise you of your rights to request an internal review and
to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office.
 
We will also advise you if we cannot provide you with the information
requested for any other reason together with the reason(s) why and details
of how you may appeal (if appropriate).
 
Yours faithfully
 
Information Team
Liverpool City Council
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL DISCLAIMER
This email contains proprietary confidential information some or all of
which may be legally privileged and/or subject to the provisions of
privacy legislation. It is intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, an addressing or transmission error
has misdirected this e-mail; you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
disseminate the information contained within this e-mail. Please notify
the author immediately by replying to this email.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states these to be the views of
Liverpool City Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Liverpool City
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.

Information Requests, Liverpool City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Hanlon

 

Please see attached our response to your information request as submitted
to Liverpool City Council.     

 

Regards

 

Information Team

 

Information Requests

Liverpool City Council

[1][email address]

[2]LCC auto signature (2)

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/

Dear Liverpool City Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Liverpool City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Changing in the weighting of Policy H10 and H11 of the LLP.'.

I am fully aware that the UDP is the statutory plan and that the emerging LLP is a material consideration for decision makers.

What I an confused about is to why the Head of Planning in Nick Kavanagh's report to the Committee in June 2018, considered the emerging policies in the LLP to outweigh "compliance with the relevant existing policies in the UDP" when she did not have the authority to do so. Neither did the Planning Committee have the authority to resolve this as they did.

Additionally, I am confused as to why some Planning Officer's where alternating between which plan carried the most weight from application to application between June 2018 an May 2019 when they do not have the authority to do so?

Therefore can you please can you answer the questions 1 and 4 again.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Yours faithfully,

John Hanlon

Dear Information Requests,

Will you please provide me with answers to the questions asked in a timely manner?

Yours sincerely,

John Hanlon

Dear Information Requests,

Any chance of a reply as this was submitted last year (2019)?

Yours sincerely,

John Hanlon

Liverpool City Council

1 Attachment

 
Dear John Hanlon
Please find attached response to your request for an internal review into
your FOI request.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Information Team
Liverpool City Council
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL DISCLAIMER
This email contains proprietary confidential information some or all of
which may be legally privileged and/or subject to the provisions of
privacy legislation. It is intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, an addressing or transmission error
has misdirected this e-mail; you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
disseminate the information contained within this e-mail. Please notify
the author immediately by replying to this email.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states these to be the views of
Liverpool City Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Liverpool City
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.