Agenda item

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE

Minutes:

The ADP introduced the Development Management Performance Update report. He affirmed that contents of Section 3.2 located on Page 48 of the Agenda Pack and noted that with respect of Major Development Team that seven decision’s had been issued in the last quarter January- March and that all of these had been within time. He noted that this was a significant upturn in the decisions issued by the Majors Team and within the last three quarters, 100% of decisions were issued in time. With respect of Section 3.5 of the report and in the appendix, he advised that there were twelve ongoing Section 106 (S106) cases were currently being progressed and that three S106 agreements had been cleared, with decision notices issued, since last reported with the assistance of the PL.

The ADP confirmed, with respect of Non Majors Performance as detailed in Section 3.6, that the team had achieved 96% of decisions in time over the last quarter. He stated the intention to continue to issue significant numbers of decisions on non-majors and that these figures would balance the two- year average.

The ADP advised that Members would continue to receive updates on Nutrient Neutrality, and that its impact on Major Development was an area which needed to be reflected upon and reviewed with respect of its impact on progress and performance. He considered that Non-Majors should be less affected by Nutrient Neutrality but that is issue would still have some affect.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle reflected on the impact of Nutrient Neutrality, he considered there to be great improvements reported to Members and so expressed his thanks to Officers for their hard work.

Cllr N Lloyd sought clarity whether the S106’s agreements contained within the report were a definitive list. The ADP advised that the list was for those S106 agreements which were actively being processed and that he would be happy to discuss individual cases not contained on the list with Members and the PL. He acknowledged that the matter of S106 agreements had been historically a difficult matter which spanned across various departments. He informed Members that new S106 Software was expected which would enable all S106 agreement to be available within the public domain, this software was aimed for June. Before the software went live, a capture process was needed to ensure all data was gathered and that this would need to be a robust process. He noted that the Council would be looking towards having a dedicated S106 officer who would act as a point of liaison with local communities and who would be able to ensure that spending is actively undertaken and planned with those communities post development and post S106.

Cllr R Kershaw asked if an update on Nutrient Neutrality could regularly provide for the Development Committee. The ADP affirmed that an update would be provided to the Committee and referred Members to the Councils dedicated ‘Nutrient Neutrality’ webpage which would be regularly updated. He advised that the Council were working together with other catchment areas affected to ensure the delivery of similar messages, and to critically move forward in a planned way.

Cllr N Pearce enquired as the time commitment, and the associated costs required to look at the appeals. The ADP referred to Section 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9 of the report which detailed the qualitative performance side of this process. He stated that the Council had a 2.44% of Major decisions being overturned in the two –year period and that this figure was no more than 0.39% for Non-Majors within the same frame. He noted it was the intention to reduce down the number of appeals, and that consideration would be given to this, but that if there were challenging decisions made on finely balanced applications at Committee, in which the applications were refused, that the Planning Team would inevitably have to defend these decisions. He concluded that the Councils appeals defence rate was extremely strong as was the quality of decision making.

Cllr A Brown stated that the Councils performance on Planning Appeals was encouraging, and that this was indicative of the harmony existing between Officers and the Development Committee. He sought clarity on the process when Members had queries about S106 matters, and who these should be directed to, and stated it was pleasing that a more robust tracking system would be implemented soon. Cllr A Brown noted that with many modern S106 agreements there was an uplift clause, and asked what system was in place on reporting to Members when a pre-existing S106 had been reviewed and further moneys would be available. He noted positive inroads with staffing as referenced on page 50 of the Agenda Pack, Section 4.3, but that there were issues with internal consultees and asked what actions were being done to resolve this. In He agreed with Cllr R Kershaw and considered that a standing item on Nutrient Neutrality would be useful.

The ADP advised, with relation to S106 uplifts, that the best recent example would be of the Hopkins Homes development in Holt in which the developer paid in the region of 1 Million pounds on the uplift clause. This clause can be insisted upon, but needs to be considered on a case by case basis, and an element of pragmatism was needed in order to see an agreement signed. The PL noted it was often conveyancing solicitors who picked up on S106 obligations and who enquired if payments had been discharged.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked how S106 money could be applied for, and referred to a part granted funded scheme he was working on for play equipment in Hoveton. The ADP affirmed that and invoice or purchase order was required, as this demonstrated commitment to buy.

Supporting documents: