Agenda item

To consider the new Cabinet report on Planning Improvement. This report is scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 24 November 2021. This Cabinet report also provides the update on the Planning function which the Board requested when the issue was last considered by the Board.

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise and comment on the report and if required make recommendations or observations as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Philip Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth and Regeneration and Councillor Bobbie Dove, Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Regulatory Services.

The Cabinet report for this item is included with the agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

The Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth and Regeneration presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each member of the Board and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Portfolio Holder and officers addressed a number of points raised by the Board including:

·     It was observed that since this issue was last discussed by the Board the work appeared to have been identifying issues rather than finding resolutions. The Board was advised that the service had become more decisive in decision making and staff dealt more promptly with customer enquiries. The protocol for handling applications had been reviewed and customers would feel the effects of the measures being put in place.

·     A Board member asked whether there was a list and timeframe of actions and a project improvement plan. It was noted that part of this was set out within the report but there was a more detailed version which had been approved by the Planning Improvement Board (PIB).

·     A number of timescales had been extended by agreement. It was suggested that therefore the table did not accurately reflect the timescales for applications. A Councillor asked whether the improvement in completions was from timescale extensions agreed. The statistics were reported in the same way as other planning authorities and extensions were agreed by the applicant in order to work towards a solution. However, it was hoped to get to a point where extensions were used infrequently. The Board noted that it was difficult for O&S to address this as it had not seen the data.

·     There were concerns raised in the use of extensions and how these were handled. A Member requested that for future reports the Board receive information on the number of reports dealt with within the original timescale and the number of applicants who had asked for a redetermination.

·     Concern was raised about the level of support being given to the development of neighbourhood plans which were supposed to have a dedicated support officer.

·     There was no mention within the report of improved communications with residents. For example, there appeared to be no ambition for providing automatic alerts to members of the public on a postcode basis.

·     The Board asked about the Planning Authority’s relationship with the Urban Regeneration Company (URC). The Portfolio Holder advised that Future Places (the URC) was a wing of the Council and they would want to see that the planning service could react to the level of Council aspirations in this area, whether through the URC or through other external bodies.

·     In relation to the delegation recommendation in the report it was noted that an opportunity was needed to review the current situation to find a way to meet the needs of the community. Further work was required to come to a resolution, the Portfolio Holder decision was one way of doing this. It was confirmed that this was not intended to downgrade or make financial savings but to find an approach which worked for all parties.

·     There was a timeframe to complete on some issues in January and it was suggested to place an update item on Board’s Forward Plan for early next year. It was confirmed that data could be brought to a future meeting in a more cogent way for the Board to get a feel of the improvements it was looking for.

·     It was noted that non-determination appeals were very low as was the case nationally. This was generally cause of last resort for an applicant. The Board were advised that there were also significant delays with the planning inspectorate.

·     Neighbourhood plans were a challenge to resource at both a local and national level. There was an intention to look at how this area was delivered and resourced. It was an important process but there was a balancing act with the resources needed to move forward with the Local Plan.

·     The Board enquired how complaints were monitored. The Portfolio Holder advised that there was a robust process in place with the PIB.  The Chief Executive as Chair of the PIB advised that they wanted to see the sort of information the O&S Board had referred to. However this had been more difficult than expected due to working with three different systems but they were beginning to see improvements.

·     A Councillor questioned how the outlined level of funding was required this late in the year.  It was noted that this was the expected spend and included short-term transitional costs partly due to the restructure process.

·     Issues were raised with the Pre-Application Service. Applications were unwilling to use it. Not necessarily as a result of the fee but of the outcome from the service. This was currently under review and would come back to the PIB.

·     It was noted that there were a number of approaches to addressing changes needed to applications. Some Councils offered a one chance approach, some councils on majors went straight to refusal if pre-application services had not been used or the advice provided not followed.  There was a need to consider all options.

·     There was no information in the report on enforcement. It was noted that this was because enforcement had been the quickest in terms of adding staff and was performing relatively well compared to other areas of the service.

·     It was noted that recruitment was the most urgent part of any improvement plan. It was noted that the review of the planning structure was due to be completed by the end of 2021

·     There were concerns raised about any reduction in the current notification service, particularly in relation to equality implications. There were communication improvements internally and with agents but this needed to be extended to the local parish and town councils.

·     A Member raised concerns about ‘twin tracking’, when applicants submit duplicate applications to force the planning authority into a determination. It was noted that this wasn’t a frequent occurrence but there was nothing which could be done to prevent it if this is how an applicant chose to proceed.

The Chairman acknowledged the report and noted that the work officers were doing was appreciated. The Board agreed to consider an update report on this issue at its meeting in February. The Chairman thanked the Portfolio Holder and Officers for attending.