Westminster Planning Performance Agreement

Case 4 is a complete response to the two arguments described above. With respect to the first argument, the fact that gifts and hospitality are openly declared does not matter to the commission of the offence. The prosecutor does not have to prove secrecy or infiltration. With respect to the second argument, the fact that the recipient performed his duties correctly does not matter to the commission of the offence. The Crown is not obligated to justify an incorrect performance; the offence is based exclusively on the acceptance of the benefit and not on the consequences of accepting the benefit. Robert Davis, deputy chairman of Westminster City Council and chairman of the planning committee until last year, resigned on Wednesday this week after an internal investigation revealed he had breached the council`s code of conduct. The internal investigation resulted in a report published yesterday on the Council`s website[1] which indicates that Mr Davis has been subjected to real estate figures at least 150 times from 2015 and has received gifts. These gifts and hospitality include dinners in the best restaurants in London and excursions to the south of France, Switzerland, Spain and the United States. They were made available by real estate companies that participated in half of the development applications decided by its commission in 2016.

AAEs can also be used to replace the legal time frame for setting a planning application with a longer time frame, subject to the consent of the applicant and the local planning authority. The pre-registration guide we give is based on the professional judgment of a planning manager and is supervised by a manager. Our deliberations do not mean that we approved the proposal or made a decision on it before a planning request was submitted. Applications have yet to be submitted to the entire assessment process. The use of AAEs should not be seen as a shortcut to a well-funded planning system. AAEs are not a substitute for fair planning fees for applications and transparency and consistency in planning services funding. However, precaution is necessary before AAEs are eliminated as a solution. Planning guidelines provide that local planning authorities may collect a fee for administrative work related to the agreement and implementation of an AEA, but only to the extent that it goes beyond the legal jurisdiction of an authority. This supposedly avoids a doubling of the planning application fee, but in reality, there is an erasure of the boundary between acts that are at discretion and those that are part of a legal liability. It would be difficult, for example, to determine why a structured and predictable approach to the definition of an application goes beyond the role of a local planning authority. [1] See www.westminster.gov.uk/sites/default/files/investigation_report_re_councillor_robert_davis.pdf The possibility of recovering additional costs is not mentioned in the revised framework of the National Planning Directive or planning practice guidance as one of the main objectives of the PPAs, but the potential to provide local planning authorities with a much-needed revenue stream is clearly one of the drivers of their promotion.

Podziel się na:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • email
  • Wykop