Agenda item

ARobinson provided the update, noting that this is the first style of the report to consolidate a number of KPIs that were previously reported to the Committee. The new series of KPIs cover an amalgamated metric and planning applications determined within target, enforcement visits taken place against the target, affordable housing completions and retail property completions. There is no data for the quarter on housing or retail property completions. 80% of planning applications were determined within target, against a target of 70%, and 79% of enforcement priority sites were completed against a target of 100%.

Cllr Foster queried why there was no data for housing or retail property completions. ARobinson advised that the data for formal housing completions relies on NHBC submissions that are not always provided in time for the report. On affordable housing, ARobinson confirmed that they would check when the NHBC data is submitted and how this syncs with the report, noting that they are reliant on the NHBC reporting cycle.

Cllr Stevens referred to item 1.8 and the reference to the vacancy rate for council-owned commercial assets being 4.6%. Cllr Stevens asked if they could receive clarification on what this refers to. ARobinson suggested that this is based on a units basis.

Cllr Guest referred to page 19 of the report, paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5, and the reference to the number of planning applications determined within target exceeding the target. Cllr Guest congratulated officers for exceeding this target, particularly given that they are down on planning officers. Cllr Guest noted that the team is working through the backlog of enforcement site visits and asked how the live caseload is being reduced. PStanley noted that cases can be resolved due to the enforcement team finding that there has been no breach, that the breach is minor and it is not worth taking action, or a retrospective planning application has been submitted.

Cllr Guest asked if cases are dropping off due to being resolved. PStanley explained that a live case has to be open and all closed cases will no longer form part of the live caseload data.

Cllr Timmis noted her surprise that the target level of completed enforcement is as high as 79%, noting that another form of prioritisation has been brought in to bring total numbers down. Cllr Timmis stated that there are at least 10 outstanding cases in her ward and that she feels the service is failing. PStanley responded that the performance target in the report solely relates to first site visits and how quickly the enforcement team are completing these. This will depend on the priority of the case, with priority 1 cases having to be visited within 1 working day, priority 2 cases within 10 working days and priority 3 cases within 15 working days. This is not a performance measure on how many live cases are reaching a resolution within a certain timeframe.

Cllr Timmis commented that a case that was opened in 2016 that has not been dealt with since would come under the 79%. PStanley stated that the 79% in the report reflects the number of cases visited for the first time in time and doesn't reflect the total caseload or speed of resolution.

The Chair asked if the 79% refers to new, live cases. PStanley stated that there could theoretically be a 2020 case that they have not visited before and if it was visited in this quarter then it would be part of the 21% not visited in time.

The Chair queried if there are KPIs regarding cases not visited. ARobinson confirmed that it would be highlighted as a missed case.

ARobinson commented on enforcement, noting that whilst the target doesn't always reflect the full lifecycle of an enforcement case, they also acknowledge the stress the service has been under. The data for June 2021 and September 2022 shows that the number of priority 1 site visits has gone from 60% to 90% in target, priority 2 has gone from 42% to over 60% and priority 3 site visits remain at 80%. The service is improving in this measure, though it is recognised that visiting a site doesn't mean the enforcement case is closed. ARobinson advised that there is an action plan to get the live caseloads reduced as much as possible.

Cllr Timmis referred to an example in her ward, noting a barn that was put up on green belt and outstanding natural beauty land. Planning permission was turned down and the barn was still put up. Planning enforcement visited and stated that they had 6 months to take the building down, but it still remains. Cllr Timmis acknowledged the challenges faced by planning enforcement given that officers are being attracted elsewhere, and she confirmed that she has written to the Chief Executive to state that the department requires better funding to deliver its service.

ARobinson advised that they could discuss individual cases offline to set out the steps being taken to resolve these. There is huge demand across the service with a limited pool of officers.

Cllr Wyatt-Lowe commented on the importance of getting statistics from other organisations and how this can impact DBC reporting.

Cllr Wyatt-Lowe noted item 4 in the report and achieving 80%, stating that this was a strong achievement given the challenges the team is currently facing.

JDoe noted that he will be meeting Cllr Timmis towards the end of the week and that he will be following up the issues in her ward.

Cllr Foster noted that the KPI is currently the only measure to illustrate how enforcement is performing and that there is no other measure. PStanley stated that the KPI is a combined priority 1-3, which were historically separated out, and only relates to first site visits. This has been the only corporate KPI for some time now, and it was noted that the public want to know both how quickly a site is visited and a resolution is found. The 400 Plan was therefore created to help reduce caseloads and allow for an annual proactive focus to look at cases from a specific year. PStanley advised that it is not always easy to measure resolution as enforcement can take many years in some cases so they would need to determine what is meant by resolution. ARobinson agreed, noting that the KPI currently only tells part of the story and that it is difficult to define what success looks like.

Cllr Foster commented on the retail property vacancy KPI and noted that data is not currently recorded by asset type. Cllr Foster asked if the intention is to record by asset type in future. ARobinson explained that the intention is to provide a granular picture of the vacancies, though there is currently limited information available, and further detail will be provided in future.

Cllr Stevens noted the comprehensive return in development management, and whilst there are extensive reports on this, he stated he was not sure whether simplistic returns would help. The Chair suggested that it's challenging to define a successful measure that members would want to see.

Cllr Wyatt-Lowe agreed with Cllr Stevens, noting that the reports that come in on development management include a high level of information, and that this illustrates the difficulties getting the resolutions that members want. Cllr Wyatt-Lowe recommended that the Committee receive a version of what the Planning Committee receives.

JDoe referred to the query on retail occupancy figures, stating that this is an area that requires further work, though also relates to item 11 on Hemel Town Centre and that they also need to look to other centers and villages over the coming months.

The report was noted.