PAPER C
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT
|
RESPONSIBLE BODY Scrutiny Committee |
||
|
ENQUIRY NAME DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB COMMITTEE REPORTS |
REFERENCE NUMBER SC01/06 |
|
|
1 OUTLINE OF ENQUIRY AND PROPOSED OUTCOME 1.1 The enquiry was to consider the extent to which reports to the Council’s Development Control Sub Committee can be improved to enable its members to be more effective and efficient in taking informed policy led decisions which are immune to challenge. 1.2 This was to ensure that the report format and content were of the highest quality with clear, concise and transparent information. 1.3
The role of the Task and Finish Group, established by the
Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 23 February 2006, was to identify
actions and resources to ensure continued improvement in the delivery of
planning matters by increased clarity in reporting on applications to the
Development Control Sub Committee. |
||
|
2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1
A quality control system be introduced by officers on
the report content to the Development Control Sub Committee to maintain the present high standard and
ensure consistency. 2.2 The précising of comments from statutory consultees and third parties be continued and copies of these letters be made available on the web link for each application. 2.3 The introduction of the use of Google Earth be welcomed as a tool to assist in supporting the information provided at meetings to assist in the decision making process. 2.4 In respect of major applications all details about planning gains through section 106 agreements be included at the end of the report after planning considerations to ensure that it did not appear that permission was being bought by a developer. 2.5 All relevant national and local policies be shown in bullet point format for each application with an appropriate web link also being included within the Development Control Sub Committee papers. 2.6 To assist members of the Development Control Sub Committee in focusing on the main issues of each application the key planning considerations should be clearly identified at the start of the report. 2.7 Regular training should be arranged by the Chairman of the Development Control Sub Committee for all members of the Council on planning issues and the opportunity taken to review processes so that improvements can be introduced in the light of experience. 2.8 The advisory information available for the public on the Development Control Sub Committee process by way of a leaflet and internet be reviewed by the Sub Committee to ensure that there is clarity and transparency of what information is reported. |
||
|
3
ISSUES IDENTIFIED 3.1
The Best Value Review of Planning Services,
undertaken in November 2003, raised some related issues. In addition the
report of the Audit Commission Inspection of Planning Services in December
2004 made some recommendations aimed at service improvement. Many of these
are on-going and have had an effect on ensuring that there is greater
transparency in the decision making process. It was considered essential that the Chairman of the Development
Control Sub Committee, in association with Officers, ensure that this work is
updated and actioned on a regular basis. 3.2 The style and content of the Council’s reports were compared with those of a number of other unitary authorities. It was considered that the Council’s reports were already of a high quality and on par with that of Swindon Borough Council which had been described by the Audit Commission in the following manner “Much of the written business of the service is conducted in plain English. Technical reports are quality controlled for brevity and ease of understanding.” [1] 3.3
There is a
need to achieve greater consistency in the way information was presented in
reports. It was accepted that reports were written by a number of planning
officers whose individual style must remain unfettered. Although a set format
was adhered to there was a noticeable difference in the length of text and
therefore preparation time. Officers should consider how a brevity controlled
format could be introduced which would not impede the authors style and
impinge on the need to keep to tight timescales for determining applications. 3.4 The approach adopted of précising the comments of both the statutory consultee’s and third party comments was acceptable rather than attaching copies to the report. The actual letters were available for everyone to see via the Council’s web-site or by visiting the Seaclose Offices to look at the file. 3.5
The most recent introduction of Google Earth at
Development Control Sub Committee meetings was seen as a useful aid for
members. This gave them a clearer understanding of the location and immediate
environment and built on the existing process whereby members of the
Committee visited relevant sites before any consideration was given to the
application. These processes helped to reduce the need for complex plans or
descriptions to be included with the Committee papers. It was apparent that the Google display assisted officers with their brief and
would become increasingly important as the change from the site specific Unitary
Development Plan to the Local Development Framework evolves. 3.6
A number of major applications involved complex
issues. Already the Council was not performing to the nationally set Best
Value Performance target over a sustained period.[2]
If insufficient information was not contained in the Committee report then
this could impact on the length of time it took to determine the application.
It was considered however that details of any form of planning gain,
particularly a Section 106 Agreement, should be included in the Committee
report after details of planning considerations. This is so that it did not
look like permission was being “bought” by the developer. It was considered that a pro-forma
statement of the Councils Section 106 expectations should be issued to
developers at the pre-application stage. This expectation should be included
in the report to the Development Control Sub Committee along with that
achieved or offered in order that members are aware and may discuss reasons
for deficiencies if any. 3.7 The layout and detail in the Committee report on national and local policies was an area where slight improvements could be made. These could be in bullet point form but with an indication of where the full documents can be found. This could be achieved either for each application or on one sheet with the agenda papers. 3.8 Applications should be determined on the basis of key planning considerations. At present these were detailed near the end of each report. Thought should also be given to including the key planning issues in a box at the front of the report to assist members to focus on these. 3.9
The
training of members on planning issues was another key area. Not only was it
important to have regular training sessions for those members that are on the
Development Control Sub Committee but open this up for all members because
they can and should become involved in applications within their own
electoral division. The present system of individual contact and query should
be expanded to form part of an Frequently Asked Question system. There should
at the Development Control Sub Committee Chairman’s discretion be regular
training sessions for his members where he perceives weakness along with at
least an annual training event for all members whereby a review could be
undertaken on the processes used, legislation and guidance so that these can
be updated and reinforced in the light of experience. 3.10
The need for clarity to those outside the Development
Control Sub Committee and Council generally should not be overlooked.
Meetings of the Sub Committee are well attended but this is normally by those
with a particular interest in an application that is due for determination. A
review should be undertaken of the advisory information leaflets that are
available to ensure that appropriate up to date information is available on
the Development Control Sub Committee process for the general public. |
||
|
4
CONSULTATION 4.1 Members of the Task and Finish Group had informal meetings with the Head of Planning Services and the Development Control Manager and a further meeting with the Development Control Manager together with the Development Team Manager. 4.2 The full Committee also took evidence at two of its formal meetings. The first meeting enabled the Head of Planning Services to express his views and the second meeting gave an opportunity to hear from Councillor Arthur Taylor and Councillor Muriel Miller, then Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Development Control Sub Committee. 4.3
A range of sample reports from a number of other
authorities were also circulated to relevant members and officers for
comment. |
||
|
5 EVIDENCE / BACKGROUND PAPERS / ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 5.1
Scoping document – Scrutiny Committee – 23 February 2006 5.2
Minute of the Scrutiny Committee – 23 February 2006. 5.3
Minute of the Scrutiny Committee – 23 March 2006. 5.4
Notes of evidence from Chairman and Vice Chairman of the
Development Control Sub Committee at the formal meeting of the Scrutiny
Committee on 23 March 2006 5.5
Summary of the Best Value Review of Planning Services –
November 2003 5.6
Summary of the Audit Commission – Inspection Report –
Planning Services – December 2004. 5.7
Notes of an informal meeting held on 16 March 2006 with the
Head of Planning Services and the Development Control Manager. 5.8
Notes of an informal meeting held on 11 May 2006 with the
Development Control Manager and the Development Team Manager. 5.9
Sample reports from Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council;
Swindon Borough Council; New Forest District Council; Blackburn with Darwen
Borough Council; Bath and North East Somerset Council and Isle of Wight
Council. 5.10
Responses received in respect of sample report
formats. 5.11
Development Control Advisory Note DC6 – Planning
Applications – An Easy Guide to the Process and DC7 – Pre-Application Advice 5.12
Isle of Wight Council’s website for planning matters
– http://www.iwight.com/council/departments/planning/appsdip/planningonline.aspx |
||
|
Prepared by: Date: |
Cllr Brian Mosdell, Cllr
Bill Burt and Mr Bob Blezzard April West & Paul
Thistlewood, Overview & Scrutiny Team 18 July 2006 |
|