Agenda item

Report to follow.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee considered a report, from the Head of Shared Internal Audit, with an appended report summarising a review of Planning Performance.

Internal Audit had been asked to complete a review of Planning Performance and data from Quarter 2 of 2020. The aim was to review the calculation process, and the supporting evidence used to complete the returns made to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Internal Audit also highlighted opportunities to improve internal controls and processes. Councillor Dr, Tumi Hawkins (Lead Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Delivery) emphasised that, in principle, Extension of Time agreements were an acceptable tool in terms of planning delivery.

Councillor Steve Hunt welcomed the apparent performance improvement but suggested that, in the longer term, it might be easier to demonstrate performance by adopting a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system.

Referring to the ambiguity between the so-called Live Tables and guidance issued by the Planning Advisory Service, Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn said that it was important to understand how the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) interpreted the statistics submitted by South Cambridgeshire District Council (via the Greater Cambridge Planning Service (GCPS)). The MHCLG should be urged to clarify against which standard performance should be measured to ensure consistency and comparison of like with like.

The Head of Shared Internal Audit summarised the Internal Audit report and the process followed in preparing it.

The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said there was no evidence to suggest that the methodology adopted by GCPS was flawed. He pointed out the data in the Live Tables and the Government’s designation criteria were matters of record and suggested that both those factors were more significant than assessing South Cambridgeshire District Council’s performance relative to other local planning authorities. Officers were ascertaining the reasons for Extensions of Time and, where necessary, would update returns submitted to MHCLG. However, he was confident that Extensions of Time had no actual impact on performance. The Committee was assured that designation would not be triggered automatically.

In response to Councillor Graham Cone, the Lead Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Delivery said that planning officers were now seeking Extensions of Time, when needed, prior to statutory determination dates.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee considered a report, from the Head of Shared Internal Audit, with an appended report summarising a review of Planning Performance.

Councillor Jose Hales welcomed the report and, in thanking the Lead Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Delivery, Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and Head of Shared Internal Audit, he asked that the Committee’s appreciation be passed on to all those involved.

Picking up on a point made by Councillor Fane, Councillor Dr. Richard Williams noted that 57% of the Extensions of Time agreed during the period under review had been made after the statutory deadline. He referred to a statement in the officer report that Extensions of time should be agreed as soon as possible and be the exception. Councillor Dr. Williams pointed out that ‘should’ does not mean ‘must’ and wondered when the exception became the norm. The Lead Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Delivery replied saying that the aim of agreeing Extensions of Time as soon as possible was laudable in principle  but circumstances had to be considered – the period under review had been challenging because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development reiterated the challenge facing officers during Quarter 2 of 2020. Nevertheless, several measures had been taken because of the Internal Audit review. These included the production of a procedure note on agreeing extensions of time and making sure that the planning system highlighted for ease of reference those cases where Extensions of Time had been agreed. The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said that he preferred the use of Extension of Time agreements as opposed to rigidly sticking to statutory deadlines, which might result in applications being refused because of them not being acceptable.

Councillor Anna Bradnam commended officers for attempting to maximise the opportunity for applicants to make applications as acceptable in planning terms as possible, citing this as evidence of officers being thorough in seeking to grant high quality planning permissions.

Comparison with the performance of other local planning authorities was not appropriate in the opinion of Councillor Geoff Harvey. He said that, given all that had been said during the meeting, it was inevitable that some applications would exceed statutory deadlines for determination.

The Lead Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Delivery assured the Committee that planning officers were keen to get planning applications processed as quickly as possible so would never seek Extensions of Time that were longer than necessary.

Councillor Bridget Smith (Leader of the Council) thanked the Head of Shared Internal Audit for an outstanding and reassuring report. The period under review had coincided with the first period of lockdown necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Councillor Smith appreciated how challenging that had been for planning officers to whom she paid special credit. Those officers must not take the blame for missed determination deadlines when planning agents had submitted poor applications and inadequate information.

Winding up the debate, the Chair thanked the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, Assistant Director (Delivery), Head of Shared Internal Audit and Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins for giving evidence to the Scrutiny and Overview Committe