Agenda item

The report was presented by James Doe

Cllr Birnie asked a question regarding targets – he wanted clarification on why there appears to be 2 targets of 70% and 10% regarding the intervention level.

J Doe explained that there are two different measures – the headline figure that is monitored every month and every quarter is about the number of appeals that go in and the number that we win. Of all the appeals that went in we won on 66%. But the Government’s intervention level is measured on a different basis. This is about 10% of appeals against the total number of applications submitted to the Council over a two year period. These are measured over two periods between 2016 and 2018, 2017 and 2019. On the first two year period we are running at 0.6 of 1%, so we are doing well. J Doe added that he has provided a link for the Government Document in the report which explains this in full detail.

J Doe said that there is red indicator in Building Control around the number of cases dealt with within two months and asked that the Committee note that this will be the last regular report that they will get on Building Control as Dacorum Building Control Services are due to transfer to Hertfordshire Building Control on October 1^st.  J Doe has advised the other HBC (Hertfordshire Building Control) members that this Committee will be expecting at least an annual report from them on their performance within the Dacorum area.

Cllr Timmis asked if there was anything in place at the moment with regards to Building Control as she has spoken to a planning officer who said that they needed more advice from Building Control and did not know where to go for that advice now.

J Doe said that if Cllr Timmis gave him the address of the property after the meeting he would look into that, and confirmed that there are arrangements in place.  We are in a transition period and agency workers have now left but their places are taken by officers from HBC, so the service should be running seamlessly.

Cllr Riddick said that appeals are always an emotive subject and on the Development Control Committee sometimes see things put forward with a recommendation for approval and wonder why they have come to them.  He said that with one in particular the applicant is disgruntled and thinking of appealing and having looked at his design and access statement which was on the website and which had a reply from our planning officer against various paragraphs, it was clear that it should never have gone forward for approval, so expectation was raised.  Cllr Riddick added that if that could be moderated rather than chasing numbers it would be beneficial.

Cllr Birnie said that this question was difficult to deal with in this committee meeting because it sounds like a matter of training of officers, he asked that the committee be copied into any answers that J Doe provided.

J Doe said that if Cllr Riddick would give him the details of the case he would look into it and added that officers should always be qualifying their advice.   He added that applicants were encouraged to seek pre-application advice because it adds both quality and value to the submissions. However, the applicant doesn’t have to take the advice and what comes in does not necessarily reflect the advice given.

Cllr Riddick said that he saw something he had not previously seen regarding income and asked if we received a bonus payment from Central Government for every approved dwelling, and could not see the income reflected in the report.

J Doe said that the New Homes Bonus comes into the council under a separate income line. What is shown in the report is the statutory planning fees.  The New Homes Bonus is being phased out by the government, but the council has effectively safeguarded the receipts so that we do not become reliant on it as a source of income because it was never going to be permanent. He added that it was more a finance matter.

Cllr Sutton said that he had been updated by James Deane with regards to New Homes Bonus but there was still no definitive answer on when it may cease.

Cllr Anderson added that the council had to ensure that the planning department did not rely on the income, which is why it is dealt with separately. Other councils who have not done that and there are some who have come to rely on it and as a result they have a financial problem.

J Doe said that when the Director of Finance gives his annual budget presentation there will be a report on the different income streams.

Cllr Hobson made the point that the decisions that are being looked out now are Q1 and those were issued by the planning inspectorate so the decisions will have been made by the committee or by officers so it is the decision of the Council.

Cllr Beauchamp asked if the agency staff spend was likely to increase or decrease and by how much as new staff are recruited.

J Doe replied that this was difficult to answer because the agency staff in place are not filling permanent roles, they are additional as there are some large applications in at the moment including LA3 which is taking the whole of one officer’s time.  It is being kept under review and as agency contracts are flexible we can make a very quick decision.

Cllr Timmis said that if she were a member of the public she would find it frustrating trying to get through to planning as she had tried over the last month and found it very difficult. She added that you may get through to an answerphone with a message that they will come back to you within four days. She has also had complaints that residents’ comments are not being added to the website promptly. Cllr Timmis said that she felt that this was not good service, although she is aware that there are temporary staff and a lot of pressure on the department at present.

J Doe said that he acknowledges the point on contacting officers and that we are trying to improve on this area, with work going on later this year on this and other efficiencies within the department. He said that on the issue of the website – comments will only go onto the website if they are submitted via the portal.  Letters and emails are not scanned in because it is so resource intensive and the efficiency drive across the council encourages use of the website.

Cllr Anderson made the point that if planning officers had to reply to every single email and letter and phone call the system would grind to a halt quickly. Case officers are overloaded and cannot reply to questions unless they are pertinent. He asked about the upgrade or replacement system that we are getting.

J Doe replied that when someone writes or emails in, the comments are not lost. They are kept on the back office file and every representation is taken into account and a summary will appear on the officer’s report.  He added that the new system is due to go live within the next few weeks and there will be a publicity launch to encourage people to sign up to the ‘My Dacorum’ portal which enables them to access other council services and comment on planning applications within that area.

Cllr Hobson suggested that an automatic reply could be given with some information. She added that she would like to understand the significance of DNP03 (the percentage of planning application refusals against target).

J Doe said that it provides an indication about how much challenge we are getting in the system.There are no statutory targets here. It is the appeal outcomes that we are looking at and this is running quite high this quarter and we will monitor it.

Cllr Riddick spoke about members of the public logging comments on the portal and said that he had been approached by numerous people who wished to comment on a particular case recently, but were terrified that there would be reprecussions. He asked that if these are sent to the relevant planning officer, are these collected as well and are people identified.

J Doe said that we cannot accept anonymous replies because it could mean an inherent injustice in the system. If someone is not prepared to put their name to what they are saying. But we do not put personal information on the system like address, phone or email details as there are data protection issues with that and the policy has always been clear. He added that if someone is concerned they can contact their ward councillor and the councillor can put forward the views from residents expressing their issues and concerns.

Cllr Taylor asked if there was any differentiation between those appeals which are based on developers or from owner applicants, and are the KPI’s for the two different and do either owner or developer applications distort the figures.

J Doe explained the information can be broken down as to what category of development the application falls into and there are 3 broad categories – major, 10 homes and above, minors which are less than that and the other category which refers to largely householder applications, extensions, garages and things within the curtilage of the dwelling. But government measures are divided into two sections -  major developments and then everything below that, so usually the upper category would be developers who are making those applications.  J Doe said that you had to drill down to get an accurate figure for the two categories and he did not have that information to hand. He added that the number of major applications per year was very low as compared to the number of minor applications, so the majority are in the minor category.

Cllr Birnie asked if it was expensive for an individual to make an appeal.

J Doe replied that it can be very expensive, but there is a statutory fee which must be paid to the borough council.

The report was noted.