Agenda item

      i.        The DM introduced the performance report and spoke positively of the maintained and improved speed and quality of decisions. He advised that meetings had been held with planning agents as part of the planning service improvement plan (PSIP).

     ii.        Cllr A Brown expressed his thanks to officers for their work for their high levels of performance. He asked if the out of time applications referenced in the report had received agreed extensions of time. Further, he asked if there would be changes to the reporting data.

    iii.        The DM advised that it was challenging to secure extensions of time in situations where it was likely that the application was recommended for refusal. Officers were working hard to ensure that those extensions of time were agreed before the statutory time limit expired. With respect of the data sets, he advised as part of the PSIP that the data set was being reviewed which would offer greater insight into the planning service. Whilst there was a plethora of data available, it was important to ensure that it presented in a way which was useful.

   iv.        The ADP confirmed his commitment at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that through the PSIP the planning service would look to produce a broader suite of performance indicators. Whilst the current indicators were interesting, other indicators were also insightful and may be of greater interest to applicants and the wider public. It was the intention that in summer 2024 a new list of indicators be published and monitored; the ADP was keen that these indicators reflected what the various stakeholders consider to be important. He encouraged members to contact him, or the DM should they have an opinion on which indicators they would like to be considered. The ADP affirmed that the Council would continue to report to government on those indicators asked of it but sought to expand on the performance reporting which a rounder suite of data to the Committee and stakeholders.

     v.        Cllr J Toye echoed his thanks, and relayed positive feedback received from agents and applicants following meetings with the planning service. He endorsed greater engagement and communication with stakeholders.

   vi.        The ADP advised there would be quarterly meetings with agents and developers with a commitment that one meeting would be held in person annually.

  vii.        The PL offered an update to the S106 obligations and offered an update for the Church Road, West Beckham application, for Broadland Housing. She confirmed that the draft S106 agreement had already been substantially agreed, though added that conversations were required with Broadland Housing. The PL advised that two applications for Broadland Housing were delayed because the developer had not yet taken an option or entered into a conditional contract to purchase the land. She stated that it was bizarre that someone should wish to make a planning application on someone else’s land given the time and expense of doing so but not enter into any contract to purchase the land. The consequence of this is that there would be nothing from stopping the landowner from selling the land with the benefit of planning permission to a different developer. The PL advised that she was in discussion with the agent about this issue, but was not satisfied with the response provided. In her experience this situation would not occur with a commercial developer, as they would not commit resources to securing planning permission for someone else’s land, without the guarantee that the land would subsequently be theirs.

 viii.        The Chairman questioned whether the landowner at West Beckham could sell the land for something other than social housing.

   ix.        The PL advised that the landowner would be bound by the restrictions detailed in the S106, but without the option to buy or purchase contract in place, the landowner would not be bound to sell the site to Broadland Housing and could instead sell the land to any registered provider. She expressed her concern that the Committee would have listened to the representations from a particular provider, yet these representations would amount nothing if the provider does not actually purchase the site.

     x.        The DM informed the Committee that the Council had employed a consultant to undertake work into how the Council may enhance the speed of delivery of affordable housing. He commented that the outlined issue would be raised as a risk point, however stated that he would be surprised if the development was not built out as expected. It was disappointing that this set of circumstances would result in delays, particularly given officers consistently work to bring items to committee at the earliest opportunity.

   xi.        Cllr K Toye asked if details could be included in applications whether developers had secured the land.

  xii.        The PL reiterated her comments that no commercial developer would likely be in this situation and stated that, in her experience, only Broadland Housing had undertaken these risks in not having secured the purchase of the sites.

 xiii.        Cllr A Brown reflected that Broadland Housing were perhaps over relying on the C certificate, however without a conditional contract or an option deed that could be registered against the master title, there was little security offered.

 xiv.        The ADP confirmed that as a simple matter of planning principle anybody could apply for any use on anybody else’s land providing they submit the relevant certificate related to the ownership position. A landowner did not need to consent to a planning application made on their site and did not need to consent before an application might be determined positively. It would clearly be exceedingly difficult to develop an application with permission without the owner’s consent, this was further complicated in the small number of applications subject to S106 obligations, as the S106 process required those with an interest in the land to sign the S106 agreement. He advised that the PL was correct in her assertions that the developer was undertaking matters at their own financial risk, and that this would be unusual with commercial developments, however the developer did not have to secure the site ahead of the submitting the application, or before it was considered by the committee under planning law.  It was disappointing that there would be a delay to the development, despite officer’s efforts and agreement by the committee.

  xv.        The DM advised he would take this matter away and have conversations with members of the housing team with a view to de-risk the process. Affordable housing was a corporate priority, and it was important that everything be done to ensure its delivery as quickly and safely as possible.

 xvi.        Cllr A Brown asked if proprietary matters could be added to a validation list confirming ownership, or that an option on the land had been secured.

xvii.        The ADP advised that this was encapsulated within the validation list as an ownership certificate needed to be completed on the form. Whether there was further scope was debateable. He considered it would be relevant to the committee to know whether applicants, if granted permission, were able to swiftly move forward with the S106 agreement.