Agenda item

(Lead Executive Member – Cllr H D Bastone)

O&S.85/16     

Members considered a report that outlined progress with implementing the Peer Review Action Plan that arose from the Planning Peer Challenge Visit conducted between 18 and 20 April 2016.

In discussion, reference was made to:-

(a)   the Transformation Programme.  In reply to a query regarding who the accountable officers were for a planning application, officers confirmed that ultimate responsibility sat with either the Specialist Planning Officers or the Level 6 Case Managers;

(b)   the potential use of apprenticeships and placements with universities.  Members expressed their support for this initiative to be explored in an attempt to address the challenge of recruiting planning officers;

(c)    scrutinising the performance information related to the service.  A Member expressed his personal belief that, whilst a standing item on each Development Management Committee meeting, the performance information was not adequately being scrutinised since it was always at the end of the agenda.  In reply, a number of Committee Members strongly rebuked this claim but, nonetheless, the Committee Chairman did give an assurance that he and officers would review the order of the agenda before each Committee meeting agenda was published.

In addition, some Members felt that there should be a greater role played by the Panel in reviewing key service performance data and the following additional recommendation was PROPOSED and SECONDED and when being put to the vote declared CARRIED:-

‘That key service performance data be reported to the Panel on a quarterly basis.’

(d)   support for neighbourhood plans.  Some Members reiterated the point that the support being offered to groups was intermittent and took issue with the Action Plan status suggesting that this particular action was ‘complete’.  In response, it was noted that the Action Plan comments only referred to specific actions.  Furthermore, an officer had recently been appointed by the Council to have specific responsibility for supporting neighbourhood planning groups to ensure that the Council was fulfilling its statutory obligations.  Members also requested that a position paper on the levels of support being provided to neighbourhood planning groups should be presented to a future Panel meeting;  

(e)   the pre-application process.  Some Members stated that the Council’s reputation for its approach to pre-applications amongst the general public was presently poor and required improvement.  In reply, officers advised that a review was to be undertaken and it was accepted that a good quality pre-application service would be beneficial to the performance of Development Management.  As part of this wide ranging review, it was confirmed that the Duty Planning Service would be included;

(f)     the new Committee site inspection process.  Members were of the view that the new process was much improved and had helped to speed up the determination of planning applications that were being presented to the Development Management Committee;

(g)   the Council’s approach to viability.  Members requested that they be given the opportunity to review the Council’s approach to viability at a future Panel meeting.  The fact that applicants paid for their own viability assessments was welcomed by Members;

(h)   planning related training.  A number of Members emphasised the importance of being in receipt of ongoing planning related training.  In response, officers confirmed that they remained committed to arranging regular training sessions for Members;

(i)     the recent surge in planning workload.  The Panel was advised that 252 planning applications had been submitted to the Council in March 2017 (which equated to a 26% increase to the monthly average).  Officers stated that this was a particularly large peak in the volume of applications received and they would continue to monitor the numbers submitted and take the appropriate action to ensure that they were dealt with as efficiently as possible;

(j)     the enforcement backlog.  In highlighting the impact of the transitional resources, it was noted that the vast majority of backlog cases had now been resolved.  However, moving forward, the Council had recognised that the initial resources allocated for planning enforcement were insufficient and this had been addressed during the Budget setting process for 2017/18;

(k)    planning officer contact details.  In light of a request, officers agreed to send the contact details of planning officers to an interested Member.

It was then:

RESOLVED

1.  That the progress made in implementing the Peer Challenge Action Plan be noted; and

2.  That key service performance data be reported to the Panel on a quarterly basis.