Agenda item

The ADP introduced the report and stated that it had been requested to understand the role and performance of statutory planning consultees in responding to applications. He added that approximately fifty percent of the PSIP actions had been completed, with the remainder expected to be completed by the end of the municipal year, which would tie in with commitments in the Corporate Plan. It was noted that customer feedback had been sought from applicants, but very few responses had been received. The ADP stated that statutory consultee data was provided in section six of the report, and noted that statutory consultees had a period of twenty-one days to either comment or decline to comment on the application. He added that applications could not be determined until the consultation period had been completed, though it was noted that this timeframe did not coincide particularly well with Parish and Town Council meetings, which meant that late comments were often received after the consultation period. It was noted that information on application extensions was also included, in respect of the eight week target date for determination which could be extended with the agreement of the applicant or agent, though officers were keen to see the number of extensions reduced. The ADP sated that beyond this, officers were keen to develop a broader range of KPIs for the Planning service that would help Members better understand performance.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman noted that the frequency and timing of Town and Parish Council meetings not syncing with planning consultations would likely always be an issue, but it was encouraging to hear of the flexibility offered. The ADP replied that whilst there was some flexibility, he encouraged Members on Parish Councils to contact case officers in advance if it was known that there would be a late submission.

      ii.          The Chairman referred to agreed extensions and noted that there was a balance to be struck between the quality of work and applicants needs, and asked whether businesses that offered economic growth were given any priority. The ADP replied that there were many different calls on priority, and the aim would be that extensions were only sought where more information or a response was required from the applicant, rather than as a result of delays caused by the Council.

     iii.          Cllr P Fisher referred to comments that some Parish and Town Councils were better at responding to consultations than others, and noted that he had requested training for Wells TC’s new influx of Councillors, and asked when this would be delivered. The ADP replied that this training had been discussed at a recent meeting of the Town and Parish Council Engagement Forum, and the first session had recently been held in Stalham, with Wells next in-line. The DFPCC stated that he would like to see training offered to Wells and the surrounding areas by late October or early November, to allow ample warning for attendance.

    iv.          Cllr N Housden asked whether on the whole statutory consultees replied in good time, to which the ADP replied that it was variable, with a response received on approximately seventy percent of applications, though only forty-six percent replied within the required timeframe, though some were better than others. Cllr N Housden stated that he sat on the Internal Rivers and Drainage Board, and noted that there had been continued criticism of all LPAs on the insufficient cross-flow of applications, and suggested that greater emphasis should be placed on engaging with drainage boards. The ADP stated that he would be happy to discuss this, but there was likely some misunderstanding amongst applicants of how the IDB operated.

      v.          Cllr J Toye noted in regards to the prioritisation of applications, that Members must remember that Planning was a fee based service, and every customer should be treated equally.

    vi.          Cllr C Cushing referred to Town and Parish Council training and asked if there was a training plan for the whole District, or just specific areas, as Fakenham would be interested in this opportunity. The ADP replied that there was an expectation to cover the whole District but full plans were yet to be established and it was a resource intensive process which may take some time to achieve.

   vii.          The Chairman proposed that a closing report be prepared for approximately one year’s time, to allow for completion of the PSIP and a review of the performance improvements seen as a result. Cllr S Penfold agreed with the proposal but asked whether it may be prudent to bring this forward slightly sooner than September 2024. The ADP replied that some time between July and September would allow for completion of the PSIP and collection of data to report on its impact.

  viii.          Cllr N Dixon proposed to note the report and request a concluding report be added to the work programme for July 2024. The recommendations were seconded by Cllr S Penfold.

RESOLVED

1.     To note the content of the report.

2.     To request that a concluding report be added to work programme for July 2024 to include a summary of performance following the full implementation of the PSIP.