Agenda item

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information, and which are not published elsewhere)

The DFPCC introduced the report and informed Members that the action plan had been prepared to address issues identified as priorities by the Committee. The PSM gave a presentation on the key points of the PSIP, the associated action plan, consultation responses and objectives. She added that key issues identified included speed of decision making, communication with stakeholders, access to information and the alignment of planning with sustainable growth interests. It was noted that since the Committee’s last update on the Strategy two external consultations had taken place, alongside a PAS best practice workshop, with quick wins implemented and vacant posts filled where possible. The PSM stated that the public consultation had received 117 responses over a one month period with the key issues identified  as communication improvements, speed of process and enforcement. She added that the Town and Parish Council consultation had received 53 responses with issues identified relating to communication, training, website improvements, enforcement and more regular updates. It was noted that the action plan had been developed using the responses as an evidence base, with actions categorised into people, process or performance.

Questions and Discussion

The Chairman referred to the consultation process and noted that he had not seen reference to developers, architects or agents, though many applications were received from these groups and their views were important. The DFPCC stated that developer forums would be held to facilitate discussions and identify important issues on a quarterly basis. The Chairman noted that whilst this would form a part of future actions, it would be helpful to understand whether these groups had formed part of the existing consultation, to which the DFPCC noted that these groups were able to respond to the public consultation with several known to have done so. He added that there was only so much that could be achieved since the last update and consultation would continue as a rolling programme with all new applicants and consultees routinely requested to give feedback on the service.

The Chairman noted that the consultation responses had highlighted enforcement as an issue, but this did not appear to be extensively covered within the action plan, and asked whether there was more work to be done to address the issue. The DFPCC replied that reviewing the enforcement process had not formed part of the original request made by the Committee, though the consultation response had raised some issues that centred around a lack of understanding of the enforcement process which did have to be addressed through education and communication. He added that whilst some responses had expressed frustration with the length of time required to take enforcement action, there were other steps the Council could take to help speed up the process which would be covered as part of the PSIP. It was noted that two further posts had been recently recruited into the Enforcement Team which would help address the issues identified.

Cllr V Holliday asked whether the 3.8 FTE employees in Enforcement included the recently added staff, which the ADP confirmed as a result of the zero based budgeting exercise.

Cllr C Cushing stated that he had been contacted by an architect to raise issues with feedback on planning applications, who had also noted that the eight week target for decisions was often missed, with routine extensions given which did not appear to be the case at neighbouring authorities. The DFPCC replied that NNDC outperformed neighbouring local authorities for speed of decisions and in higher volumes, whilst extensions had to be agreed by applicants and were not automatically applied. He added that most delays were the result of officers awaiting a response from statutory consultees that NNDC had no control over, and it was for this reason that the extension provision was provided. It was noted that the Council did use these extensions, but no more than other authorities, but efforts would be made to reduce them. Cllr C Cushing noted that it may be a perception held by applicants, but if this was the case then efforts should be made to challenge these perceptions through evidence and benchmarking data.

Cllr J Rest referred to the first point of Member engagement on the action plan and requested that planning notices be taken down once applications had been decided or withdrawn, as he was aware of notices that had been left for several weeks after a withdrawal. The DFPCC replied that the planning notice system did require improvement, but issues were primarily the result of resource limitations, and priority was given to getting notices up rather than taking them down. Cllr J Rest stated that most Members would be happy to take down notices in their wards if asked. The DFPCC replied that automatic notices should be issued to ward Members if an application was withdrawn, but it may have failed on this occasion and efforts would be made to improve the automation processes. Cllr A Brown noted that there had been issues with some notices which included dates that did not match decision timeframes, which had adverse impact on Parish Council considerations. He added that a better automated system to alert Members of any changes to applications would help to resolve these issues.

Cllr J Toye referred to statutory consultee response times and suggested that it would be interesting to know whether neighbouring authorities had similar issues. The DFPCC replied that statutory consultees were struggling with limited resources, and one measures being taken to address this within the organisation was to re-establish the Development Team approach to applications that would bring in statutory consultees into application discussions much earlier in the process. He added that the Council may also be able to implement planning performance agreements to determine when each stage should be completed. It was noted that improving communication to help applicants better understand the process would also improve service perceptions. It was confirmed following a suggestion from the Chairman that the next PSIP update could include an overview of Planning performance, benchmarked against other authorities, alongside data on delays caused by statutory consultees or other reasons such as nutrient neutrality, that could be used to form the basis of further improvement actions.

Cllr A Brown stated that the administration had set-out to put customer service at the forefront of the Council and the PSIP was a key part of this work. He added that despite this, the Council remained dependent on responses from statutory consultees that had all suffered from significant cuts. Cllr Brown noted that implementation of the plan would require significant resource and he had concerns that new rules allowing Council’s the autonomy to set their own planning fees would come too late to address any resourcing requirements required to fully implement the plan.

The recommendation was proposed by Cllr J Toye and seconded by Cllr P Heinrich in addition to an action to request additional performance information discussed as part of the next PSIP update.

RESOLVED

1.     That the Overview & Scrutiny Committee supports the Planning Service Improvement Action Plan.

ACTIONS

1.     Update on action plan to be added to 23-24 Work Programme, to include breakdown of performance as impacted by delays with statutory consultees.