PAPER D
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT
|
RESPONSIBLE BODY Scrutiny Committee |
||
|
ENQUIRY NAME DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SPEED OF DETERMINATION |
REFERENCE NUMBER SC02/06 |
|
|
1 OUTLINE OF ENQUIRY AND PROPOSED OUTCOME 1.1 The enquiry was to identify the progress being made on improving the performance targets in respect of determining minor and major planning applications. 1.2 This was to ensure that there is a sustained improvement in the determination of planning applications so that the Council’s performance is in the upper quartile. 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 through the identification of areas where delays occur in
the determination of minor and major planning applications. |
||
|
2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 The Committee Chairman should ensure that regular training should be arranged for all members of the Council on planning issues in general and DCC in particular and should conduct a review of processes so that improvements can be rapidly introduced in the light of experience. 2.2 To enable the Council to meet, on a sustainable basis, the National Best Value Performance Targets a business case as a matter of urgency be prepared by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Planning and Transport together with the Strategic Director for Environment Services for the temporary part time post in the East Wight Team to be made a permanent full time post; the appointment of a further Enforcement Officer; and a specialised Section 106 Monitoring Officer. 2.3
In
considering the speed of determination of major applications those where an
outside agency report such as an Environmental or Traffic Management Statement is required are to be
highlighted at an early stage due to the possible impact on timescales. 2.4
The
importance of members of the Development Control Sub Committee in determining
an application at a meeting, rather than deferral, be highlighted together
with attendance at site visits. The importance of the Chairman emphasising to
members the need to fully understand the content of reports to the Sub
Committee should be stressed. The ability for members to raise individual
queries with Officers prior to the public meeting cannot be underestimated
and officers should be encouraged to consider closer contact with the local
member at pre-application stage. 2.5
Procedures
for the handling of major applications involving Section 106 agreements
should be reviewed in the light of best practice by other Authorities and
introduced as a matter of urgency. See recommendations in previous report
SCO1/06 2.6
The
information contained in the Development Control Advisory Notes both on the
website and in leaflet form be reviewed on a quarterly basis by officers. 2.7
Staff
within Development Control should meet on an opportunity basis with members
in order to foster closer working and be congratulated upon their performance
and thanked publicly for the work that they undertake under very demanding
circumstances. |
||
|
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 the speed of determination of applications at least meets the government targets over a sustained period. Because of a noted lapse It is recommended that the Chairman and lead Officers meet and update this document on a regular basis 3.2 The National Targets Best value performance Indicators (BVPI’s) for the determination of planning applications are : Major applications – 60% within 13 weeks Minor applications – 65% within 8 weeks Other applications – 80% within 8 weeks 3.3 A major application involved housing development of 10 or more units, 1,000 square metres for retail or half a hectare for outline approval. Minors are all other applications with small extensions and alterations coming within the description of other. 3.4
The Audit
Commission, in its report following an inspection of the Council’s planning
services in December 2004, highlighted that the Council was not consistently
meeting national targets. In 2003/04 the Council only achieved 59.7%
determination of majors within 13 weeks against the national target of 60%;
47.6% of minors within 8 weeks against the target of 65% and others 67%
against a target of 80%. Although the situation improved for minors (61.8% -
just below target) and others (83.6% - above target) majors had dropped to
44.7%. The Audit Commission indicated that whilst there was an improvement in
some areas the Council could not demonstrate a consistent level of
performance.[1] It was
noted with concern that at no stage in the processing of major applications
was the local member invited on a without prejudice basis to comment or
advise in order to facilitate or smooth progress. 3.5 The last report to Cabinet on 2 May 2006 on Quarterly Performance Management highlighted that there was still concern over the BVPI 109a – percentage of major planning applications determined in 13 weeks. This indicated that only 53.33% had been achieved against a target of 60%. With minor applications 90.42% had been determined within target against a National target of 60%. Additionally for others the National target of 80% had been exceeded and 97.49% had been determined.[2] 3.6
Members
were advised that the national average case load per Planning Officer was 150.
It was believed by officers that the average case load for the Council’s own
Planning Officers was 235. In a recent report by the Planning Advisory
Service a figure of 188 was indicated. This was still however a high number
and could not be sustained because staffing levels were fragile and it was
having an effect on morale and increasing stress levels.[3]
This current level of case load per officer
was viewed with concern by the Task Group and efforts taken to reduce
this without delay 3.7
Failure to
demonstrate the Council’s ability to meet the performance targets would
jeopardise the Planning Delivery Grant from the Government. A substantial
part of the revenue budget for Planning Services was staff orientated.[4] It was considered that the service had been
subjected to efficiency savings which was having a major effect on the
Council’s ability to achieve the necessary performance targets. Staffing levels were now at a dangerous
low and it was considered unrealistic to expect further improvements in
performance whilst this situation existed. |
||
|
4
CURRENT STAFFING 4.1 Staffing for minor applications was : East Wight – Team Leader and three Planning Officers (one post on a temporary contract for three days per week) plus an Enforcement Officer. West Wight – Team Leader and four Planning Officers plus and Enforcement Officer. 4.2 For major applications there was a Team Manager and two Planning Officers. 4.3 The other applications were primarily dealt with by the Household Team which comprised of 4 members of staff. |
||
|
5 CURRENT ISSUES 5.1 There had been a large backlog of major applications and these had been cleared and now all those being dealt with were live. It was however noted that because of the small number of major applications figures tended to be volatile. The Island also had some unique circumstances which had to be taken into account when dealing with applications (ground stability, coastline, conservation areas and SSSI’s) and these could delay determination. 5.2
Pre application advice was now seen as an important
element in the timescales for determination. This helped the Council to work
in partnership with applicants and agents to achieve high quality development
for all concerned. Applicants and agents could be made aware of the Council’s
policies and advice. Costly mistakes could therefore be avoided and the
processing of the application speeded up when submitted. A range of
information was available for applicants on the Council’s website and also in
leaflet form.[5] Properly handled, the involvement of
local members at the pre application stage could well be advantageous to all
parties 5.3 Timescales did not commence until an application had been validated. Acceptance of pro-forma Section 106 requirements should be included in this validation. For major applications there was a discrepancy that had already been highlighted by Planning Authorities at a national level, in that where an Environmental Impact Statement was required a time period of 16 weeks had to be given although the National target of determination within 13 weeks still applied. 5.4 A more robust line was being adopted by officers where information was required to enable an application to be processed. If this was not provided within a set timescale then it was refused. This approach should be made more fully known to all applicants 5.5 For some major applications it was necessary to buy expertise in, such as on the wind turbine application. This practice, with the Chairman’s consent, would have to continue. Consideration could however be given to seconding a planning officer from another Authority who has appropriate experience as part of career development. A further option would be to enable a Council planning officer to be seconded to a mainland authority to gain wider experience and assist with career development. 5.6
Some developers may
be aware of the staffing deficiency within the Development Control, There was
an essential requirement amongst members and the general public for the
Council to be proactive in planning enforcement.[6]
If an additional enforcement post was created this would assist in freeing up
planning officers time to deal with applications rather than side issues
arising. It was noted however, that
planning enforcement was discretionary. 5.7
Delays occur with
major applications where conditions of an Section 106 Agreement was required
as part of the planning approval. In
addition to negotiating with applicants and agents there was an urgent need
to ensure that the implementation and control of any payments or conditions
were closely monitored. It was noted that in some authorities a specialist
post dealt with the full range of matters associated with such agreements.
Such a person need not be a planning officer and the cost of this post could
well be self financing as part of a Section 106 Agreement. 5.8
At the time that the
enquiry was near completion it was noted that the Planning Advisory Service
had undertaken a review of planning services and highlighted the need for an
extra member of staff to deal with major applications. This report had not
been seen by members of the Task Group so they were unable to comment on its
contents but staff loading levels were observed and recommendations included. 5.9
There was no serious
delay caused by the involvement of Town and Parish Councils in the
consultation process. Several had more efficient ways of handling the process
and such best practice could be shared with other Town and Parish Councils.
Previously it appeared that Town and Parish Councils were advised of outcomes
arising from applications that they had commented upon. This assisted them in
obtaining a better understanding of what were deemed to be valid planning
considerations. Clerks should be notified that an improved telephone contact
service has been implemented and information is available through officer
contact should their members require any necessary detail prior to the issue
of the planning brief or delegated decision.. 5.10
The role played by
elected members, particularly at meetings of the Development Control Sub
Committee, was vital in the speed of determination. Firstly all members had a
role to play as the local member in all applications. There needed to be a
consistent understanding of the circumstances that an application could be
dealt with under delegated powers and the reasons why an application should
be submitted to the Committee for consideration. Appropriate training for all
members was a key element in this and such training should be conducted
continually by formal presentation on an opportunity basis and by Email on a
FAQ (frequently asked question) system. 5.11
It was noted that
the number of deferrals by the Committee had decreased in recent years. This
was a positive move and reflects members growing confidence and expertise,
this improvement has been assisted by site inspections being held prior to
the formal meeting and the closer contact with Officers during. The trialling
of Google Earth had also been well received by members on the Sub Committee
and public participants. 5.12
In recognising that
the speed of determination was a central government requirement, a factor that could be measured, this took no account of the quality of the
development. There was an accepted view by officers and the Task Group that
it was far more preferable to get a good quality development that was agreed
just outside the target period than a poor quality one within.[7]
Better and more forceful presentation of this Council’s expectancy would also
assist the process as would Officers understanding of this administration’s
vision. |
||
|
6 CONSULTATION 6.1 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. 6.2
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. |
||
|
7.1
Scoping document – Scrutiny Committee – 23 February 2006 7.2
Minute of the Scrutiny Committee – 23 February 2006. 7.3
Minute of the Scrutiny Committee – 23 March 2006. 7.4
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 7.5
Summary of the Best Value Review of Planning Services –
November 2003 7.6
Summary of the Audit Commission – Inspection Report –
Planning Services – December 2004. 7.7
Notes of an informal meeting held on 16 March 2006 with the
Head of Planning Services and the Development Control Manager. 7.8
Notes of an informal meeting held on 11 May 2006 with the
Development Control Manager and the Development Team Manager. 7.9
Quarterly Performance Management Report to Cabinet – 2 May
2006 7.10
Audit Commission – National Report – February 2006 –
The Planning System – Matching Expectations and Capacity 7.11
Development Control Advisory Note DC6 – Planning
Applications – An Easy Guide to the Process and Advisory Note DC7 –
Pre-Application Advice. 7.12
Council Revenue Budget Book for 2006-07. 7.13
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, Mr Tony Marvin and Mr Bob Blezzard April West & Paul
Thistlewood, Overview & Scrutiny Team 18 July 2006 |
|
[1] Audit Commission Inspection Report – Planning Services – December 2004.
[2] Quarterly Performance Management Report to Cabinet – 2 May 2006.
[3] Notes of a meeting on 11 May 2005 with the Development Control Manager and Developmnet Team Manager.
[4] Council Revenue Budget Book 2006-07.
[5] Development Control Advisory Note DC6 – Planning Applications – An Easy Guide to the Process and DC 7 – Pre-Application Advice.
[6] Notes of a meeting on 11 May 2005 with the Development Control Manager and Development Team Leader.
[7] Minutes of the Scrutiny Committee held on 23 February 2006.