Issue - meetings

The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and the Head of New Communities, presented the Development Management Performance report. This updated the committee on performance and ongoing service improvements within the Development Management Service. Further to the information contained in the report, the committee was informed that in respect of the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) performance targets for speed of decision making, the service had maintained a position above designation. There was a risk of designation on appeal performance which was subject to the outcome of two outstanding appeals. The committee was assured that despite the improvement in performance, the service was not becoming complacent with further work still to do. The Director emphasised that the Council was a competent authority with a competent planning service.

The committee discussed the report:

·         Members asked how many five year land supply decisions were Planning Committee decisions which went against officer recommendations.  This data was not to hand at the meeting but would be provided to members following the meeting.

·         In response to a query regarding the classification of major and non major applications, members were informed that CLG considered anything above ten dwellings a major development.

·         The committee how many officer and committee decisions had become appeals and how many of these related to major and non major applications. This information was not available at the meeting but would be provided outside the meeting. The committee was informed that the vast majority of applications were dealt with by officer decisions.

·         The committee was informed that the department was analysing data of all officers’ caseloads, to enable better understanding of this in order to become more sophisticated in the way caseloads were managed. Members were informed that officers’ caseloads were within capacity.

·         The committee was informed that applications were asked to be withdrawn when there were significant problems with the application. The applicant was then invited for pre-planning advice before resubmitting their application. Advising applicants to withdraw their application was not done routinely and data on this would be provided.

·         The submission of invalid applications was discussed and it was proposed that an application checklist be provided to applicants to help them submit valid applications. Members were informed that the Council’s planning portal, through which 80% of planning applications were submitted, did this to a point as it required applicants to submit a Design and Access Statement before it accepted the submission of a planning application. Guidance was being simplified so that it was easier for applicants to understand.

·         The Joint Director advised that following data analysis, it had been found that several planning agents accounted for the majority of invalid applications submitted. These agents would be written to and help and advice offered to help them submit valid applications. The service would also be looking at simplifying its planning guidance. The service had found that some planning agents did not keep their clients informed of the progress of their applications, therefore the service would be trying to keep  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

The Planning Portfolio Holder, Head of Development Management and Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented an update on performance and service improvement within the Development Management Service. The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, commended the work of the Development Management Team in improving performance.

Points of discussion and clarification regarding the update were:

·         It was clarified that of 220 planning appeals received, 15 related to non determination appeals and two were from the backlog.

·         Following queries raised at the previous meeting, it was confirmed that notifications of major applications were being provided. Members were informed that options for providing electronic notifications were being explored, to enable more prompt notification.

·         The actual figures in table 2 of Appendix 1 of the report, as well as the percentages, were requested for the next update report.

·         Alongside table 1 of Appendix 1, which outlined the national targets, members requested a table outlining what was being achieved against these targets. It was confirmed that 60% was a national target and that if performance fell below 50%, designation would occur.

·         Members were informed that the implications of designation were not yet known, as designation measures had only been consulted on by the Government and a designation process had not yet been developed.

·         Members requested that the number of planning appeals in which costs were awarded against the council, be included in the report.

·         The target date of the end of October 2016 to clear the backlog was queried, as the rate of clearing the backlog had been steadily declining. The Planning Portfolio Holder confirmed that the backlog was progressing faster than it had been as more staff had been recruited. The Head of Development Management was confident that the backlog would be cleared by the end of October to the middle of November 2016. Projections for this were being reviewed on a weekly basis.

·         The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development advised that more detailed reporting on the backlog would be included in the report to the committee in November 2016.

·         The committee was informed of some development agencies taking advantage of the lack of a five year land supply, and the actions being taken by the Council to address this.

·         The Planning Portfolio Holder emphasised that the National Planning Policy Framework stipulated that development should be in sustainable locations and the Council followed this policy. It was also emphasised that every planning application was judged on its own merit.

·         It was clarified that the 13 week timescale for major planning applications, started once an application had been received and was valid.

·         Members raised concern that documentation for old planning applications was not available on the planning portal. The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development would look into this outside the meeting. Councillors Hart and Bradnam would liaise with The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development regarding this.

The committee NOTED the update and AGREED that a further update report would be scheduled for the committee’s meeting in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5