Agenda item

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee considered a report on South Cambridgeshire District Council planning performance in relation to decisions made on planning applications during the period from 1 September 2019 to 30 September 2021. The report included information and analysis relating to the numbers of decisions that met the Government’s statutory targets, the numbers of decisions made with and without extensions of time (EOTs) and the numbers of applications in hand or outstanding at the end of each month within the assessment period.

The report had been prepared in response to a motion from Councillor Heather Williams at Full Council on 23 September 2021, which had been referred to the Scrutiny and Overview Committee.

Members recognised that the review period included the challenging backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic, staff shortages caused by recruitment difficulties, and the transition to a new software package.

Councillor Peter Fane suggested that the recent introduction of a ‘no amendments’ approach to planning applications and the discharge of conditions had created a risk that applicants would withdraw applications and re-submit them. In reply, the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development acknowledged that risk but said that the number of applications ‘on hold’ pending amendment could also have a significant impact on officers’ caseloads. Committee members accepted that the ‘no amendments’ approach was still a pilot scheme intended above all to clear the backlog of planning applications and encourage greater discipline by those submitting new applications. Nevertheless, the new approach should be monitored. Councillor Anna Bradnam said that clear communication was key given the potential financial implications for individuals of both the backlog and the ‘no amendments’ approach’. Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Lead Cabinet Member for Planning Policy and Delivery agreed that customer service was key and added that she recognised that the cost of living in the Greater Cambridge area amongst other factors made it difficult to recruit in an area nationally facing skill shortages. The Committee noted that staff turnover had increased as the country began to emerge from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Councillor Nigel Cathcart pointed out that in many cases amendments were only needed because the applicant or applicant’s agent had failed to provide all the information needed to process the application quickly.

Councillor Dr Tumi Hawkins (Lead Cabinet Member for Planning Delivery and Policy) informed the Committee verbally about data published by the Government covering the 24-month period ending in June 2021. This data related to the use of Planning Performance Agreements / Extensions of time as a percentage of all decisions made by neighbouring councils and was as follows:

Major applications

South Cambridgeshire District Council – 77%

East Cambridgeshire District Council - 93%

Fenland District Council – 68%

West Suffolk District Council – 79%

Huntingdonshire District Council - 87%

Peterborough City Council - 80%

Non-Major applications

South Cambridgeshire District Council - 50%

East Cambridgeshire District Council - 46%

Fenland District Council - 29%

Peterborough City Council – 46%

Huntingdonshire District Council - 58%

West Suffolk District Council - 42%

Councillor Dr. Richard Williams asked for written confirmation of the figures provided, which related only to application types included in the Government’s submission requirements. South Cambridgeshire District Council’s published position was included in the above lists for comparison purposes.

In response to a question from Councillor Dr. Martin Cahn, the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said that the service had no empirical evidence to indicate whether, compared with Cambridge City Council, the planning process at South Cambridgeshire District Council was extended because of the need to involve parish councils. Cambridge City Council had residents associations and the service sought to engage with them on planning matters – although they were not statutory consultees on applications.

Performance management information was being reviewed so that it could assist managers and members to understand the services activities and be more effective (and not skewed by statistical extremes). 

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee recommended that Cabinet notes the comments made by Committee members and determines whether any further non-operational action is required.