Agenda item

The report was taken as read, with the following salient points highlighted.  During the Q4 period, a planning moratorium had been initiated, which affected the figures in the report.  There was an extended text in section 2 highlighting key priorities that the department had undertaken in the previous quarter.  Section 3 set out the majority of the key performance indicators.  Namely, planning fee income was ahead of budget.  However, there had been some decline in performance, primarily due to the planning moratorium.

The report was noted and the floor was opened to questions and comments.

Cllr Timmis asked for further details on the proposed fully automated committed development software to process town planning applications.  It was explained that a pilot programme had been secured with £350,000 from Central Government for a service that would improve the efficiency of the advice given to residents in respect of town planning applications, allowing members of the public to check in advance, prior to submission, whether their application was likely to be approved, with the aim of freeing up resources.  Cllr Timmis expressed concern that residents may be able to bypass local authorities.  In response, it was stressed that the proposed model was not a mechanism to circumvent the existing town planning approval mechanisms, but rather was a pre-application process to screen out those applications likely to be declined.  Nonetheless, Cllr Timmis was concerned that this may give residents the impression that they could continue with proposed works despite their application having been declined.  In response to this, it was clarified that the intention of the model being piloted was to deal with binary yes-or-no decisions that did not require town planning judgment. 

Cllr Timmis also referred to the issue of an insufficient number of enforcement officers to meet the demand for enforcement issues in need of processing.  As a result, many cases were in danger of expiring before they could be duly addressed.  In response, the ongoing difficulties in this area were acknowledged.  A senior enforcement officer had been appointed, though resourcing issues remained to affect the service.  Recruitment efforts were ongoing, along with efforts to engage with partners to secure additional resources, and to make enforcement officer roles more attractive to prospective recruits.  It was highlighted that there was widespread difficulty within the industry in terms of recruiting planning and enforcement officers.

Further on the issue of enforcement, Cllr Hearn seconded concerns at the lack of resources to sufficiently meet demand for cases before they expired.  In response, it was explained that there was a 4-year rule and a 10-year rule, depending on whether the case involved a change of use.  More broadly, enforcement plans were in place and the majority of site visits were conducted within the prescribed period, and all cases continued to be investigated.  In summary, the lack of resources did not mean to say that enforcement officers were not investigating existing cases.  Other solutions were also being explored, such as the removal permitted development rights in light of the practice of some landowners selling off plots of land.  Cllr Hearn wondered whether high local house prices was having an impact on the ability to recruit individuals.  It was acknowledged that this may be one factor among several, but no data was available to support this.  It was added that work was ongoing across the county to address the industry-wide issue of recruitment into town planning roles.

Cllr Foster requested further information on the ESRI project.  In response, it was explained that this was an exciting pilot to digitise and graphically present data relating to development contributions in respect of section 106 agreements. 

The report was noted.