Agenda item

D Austin and J Doe gave a presentation on complaints over the year in their service areas.

D Austin explained that the public can make a complaint online via the website. A stage 1 complaint is investigated by a Group Manager and if it is escalated to stage 2 complaint then it will be investigated by an Assistant Director. If the complainant is not satisfied with the stage 2 response, they can contact the ombudsman.

J Doe ran through the main areas of complaints with the Development Management service:
- didn’t receive a letter about application
- didn’t see the site notice
- can’t see comments online
- comments not taken into account
- disagree with decision
- certain policies not taken into account

J Doe said the complaints process was a positive experience and allows for services to improve. The new planning software is due to go out to tender and this should solve the problems currently experienced by the public.

Councillor Ransley said the main issue with the current system is that people do not know if their comments have been received and perhaps there should be a system in place to acknowledge receipt.

J Doe said this would have to be done manually. There is nothing on the system to allow that function. The department do not have the resources to respond to every comment.

Councillor Timmis said there had been a few applications in her ward that did not have a single comment online. She also added that these complaints in the presentation are only those submitted online and queried about those that are sent via email or on the phone. She hoped that in the future, the report could include what the departments were learning from the complaints.

D Austin said the complaints could be incorporated into the quarterly performance reports and then members could see trends developing. These aren’t the only complaints the council receive. A lot come via the MP but this is being looked into by Rob Smyth to see if it can be incorporated into the data.

Councillor Birnie said it would be useful if the complaints could be broken down. He commented that planning officers should be able to make a sensible distinction about sending notification to residents about a planning application. Some controversial applications affect a wider area yet residents are surprised when they find out about it as they haven’t been notified.

J Doe said this was a valid point. The Council must prepare a Statement of Community Involvement which sets out standards that must be followed. For major applications, we are required to put adverts in the local press. He said he would this up with Councillor G Sutton to see if policies should be reviewed.

Councillor S Hearn asked who you complain to if Dacorum has made a decision on a planning application due to incorrect information from Herts Highways?

J Doe said the permission comes from Dacorum. Herts County Council are only a consultee. There is a Member Development session on 8^th February which will include a presentation from Herts Highways.

Councillor S Hearn asked how many times DBC has overruled the advice from Herts Highways.

J Doe said he didn’t have that information.

Councillor Anderson reminded the Committee that DBC did not have the right to overturn highways advice without losing decisions on appeal and incurring considerable legal costs.

Councillor G Sutton said that members could request further information from Highways at the meeting in February. There is a clear agenda of what is going to be discussed.

Councillor Birnie said this issue isn’t a case of member training but to query the advice that is being received.

J Doe said it had been done under the Member Development umbrella so that it is open to all members, not just this committee.

Councillor Birnie asked if members will be able to quote actual cases where advice received has been confusing.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe said the officers at county would need prior notice of these cases otherwise it will not be an effective session.

Councillor G Sutton suggested that members come up with 2-3 cases that they are concerned about and he said he would try and feed this back to county officers.

Councillor Matthews said it would have been helpful to see the presentation prior to the meeting and said there was no analysis of the complaints data. The real measure of the effectiveness of the process is to understand what is going on.

Councillor Anderson said that this was the first time this report had been requested, that officers had not received any terms of reference, and that the goal of the debate was to identify what members would require in the future.  He asked the committee if they would like the data to be in the quarterly reports or to have a stand-alone annual report.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe said she felt a stand alone annual report would be better. The numbers may get buried in the quarterly reports. A more detailed and meaningful debate and discussion would increase democratic transparency if the public could see that members were scrutinising both complaints and compliments of the council annually.

Councillor Matthews said the numbers would not be meaningful on a quarterly basis. The council are fortunate to have a small number of complaints and it would be better to analysis these numbers over a 12 month period.

Councillor Timmis asked if other complaints could be included not just those on the website.

J Doe said the principle route is via the council’s website. Written complaints are included on the system. If someone phones up to complain, they are directed to the website if they want to make the complaint official.

Councillor Anderson asked the officers if all these suggestions were deliverable.

D Austin said he was not sure but he would take the suggestions away. The scrutiny work programmes are now discussed at CMT so he said he would raise this at the next meeting and would pass the minutes of this meeting on to R Smyth so he is aware of the expectations.

Outcome

That the Strategic Planning and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee approve the report.