To authorise the adoption of a revised Validation Checklist, in light of the fact, that no significant alterations arose from the consultation.

That following consultation, the revised Validation Checklist be adopted.

At the Planning and Development Management Committee meeting of 13 September 2018, Members resolved:-

(1)    To approve the draft Application Validation Checklist for consultation purposes;

(2)    That the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to adopt the revised Validation Checklist in the event that following consultation, there are no significant alterations to the consultation draft.

The Application Validation Checklist has been out for consultation for a period of six weeks, ending on 29 October 2018. No comments from bodies external to the Council have been received. A number of minor alterations have been suggested by officers in the Strategic Growth and Planning and Development Service which have been incorporated into the document.

There are no alterations to the consultation draft which could be considered ‘significant’, instead relating mainly to matters of detail in respect of particular validation requirements and additions in relation to tall buildings and waste management. The more overarching changes to the Checklist from the 2016 version were approved by Planning Committee as part of the consultation draft. As such, the Head of Planning and Development is authorised to adopt the Validation Checklist, in accordance with the resolution of the Planning Committee.

Option 1: Not to incorporate any alterations to the consultation draft before adoption, or to only incorporate some of them. This was rejected because the comments made were in respect of matters of detail, reasonable and proportionate, and would add clarity both to the Validation Checklist and in planning decision making.

Option 2: Not to adopt the Checklist. This would mean the Council was unable to require a developer to comply with its ‘local information requirements’ for the submission of planning applications which would cause delays to the process and uncertainty for residents, developers and investors. It would also miss an opportunity to bring the Checklist up to date with current national guidance for the publication of viability assessments, thus reducing transparency in the process.

Not applicable.