Agenda item

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer providing information on planning performance and activity for the period 2016-17 financial year.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer provided Members with planning performance and activity for the period 2016-17 financial year.

Members were informed that the service had received 4,966 applications which was a 5.6% increase on the previous year and 2% above the national average 3.6% above the national average of 2%.

The number of decisions was up 9.3%. Determining time across the three categories reported had fallen slightly with the lowest at 89.4 % however it was still up compared with national average of 86%.

Members heard that the Planning Service was currently running with 6.6 Full Time Equivalent vacancies and two officers on long term sick leave.

Members noted that £776 had been refunded under Planning Guarantee there had been an unprecedented fee surplus of £457,000. This was due in part to some significant applications which attracted large fees.

The Panel were informed that the number of enforcement cases remained at a consistently high level of 1275 cases received. The workload through the service remained substantial with a significant number of complex cases being investigated. However, the number of cases had been maintained at approximately 1000 which was a long standing service objective. It was noted that Leeds continues to take more formal action then other surrounding authorities.

To release some of the pressure a temporary member of staff had been appointed in both Compliance and one area team and further temporary staff were being sought until permanent appointments can be made.

The Panel noted that 105 decisions had been taken at Plans Panels with 11 officer decisions being overturned. 

Members were informed that there were 233 new appeals in 2016-17 with most in relation to appeals against refusal of planning consent. Of the total appeals 93 related to householder appeals where 42% of them were allowed. Members were advised that since the relaxation of the permitted development on larger house extensions, it appears from analysis of the Planning Inspectorate’s decisions that more household extensions were being allowed which were ‘marginal’, given the permitted development fall-back position. It was noted that the service was committed to further analysis on these appeals and would make changes as appropriate.

Members heard that there had been an increase of 15% in the number of complaints received when compared to the previous year. The main theme of upheld complaints focused on the way planning applications had been advertised and that comments received from neighbours had not been taken into account by officers. It was noted that action had been taken to ensure the appropriate number of site notices were erected by printing additional notices for the planning case officer to erect on site. It was also noted that larger development sites were advertised in the newspaper however this was an expensive way to advertise.

The Panel were informed that in January 2017, an online survey had been sent to over 5,000 participants who had used the planning service. The response rate was 4% and although low common issues had been identified particularly from the comments respondents made. The Panel noted that work would be undertaken to address the issues raised.

The Panel also noted that 17% of the comments made were constructive about the Planning Services with 16% being complimentary.

Members were informed that in March 2017, the service was successful in being reaccredited with Customer Services Excellence.

Members were also informed that the service had been inspected with the inspector also being inspected. The comments from the inspector were complimentary about the meeting room, customer services, the way the Chairs interacted with Members of the public, Members involvement, and Officers conduct at Panel.

With regards to the Community Infrastructure Levy Members were advised that £1.86 million had been paid to the City Council which was up on last year’s figure.

It was noted that non-payment was being chased and that fines could be incurred with notices being sent. Members were advised that in some cases smaller builders were becoming savvy with regulations and were gaining planning permission then selling it on to individuals whom then claimed self build relief but re employed the builder to construct the house for them, thus avoiding paying CIL.

It was noted that non-payment was being chased and that surcharges were being imposed where reminder notices were triggered.

Members discussed the following points:

·  Need for more resources to be put into enforcement

·  Low return on customer survey and need to increase return to make the data more valid

·  Size of notices on lamp posts  - to consider use of A3 notices

·  Send out letters advertising planning to a larger number of neighbours

·  CIL payments and the request by Members for Ward Councillors to be informed. It was noted that this information was sent in a report on a six monthly basis to Ward Councillors but not by specific application.

·  Challenging an Inspector’s appeal decision – particular application was discussed where Members had not agreed with the Inspector’s Decision. 

Cllr. S McKenna thanked the Planning Services staff and paid tribute to them as they were always forthcoming with information, willing to help and meet to discuss any issues.

Cllr. P Gruen said that it was an excellent report in terms of achievement and performance and well done to all officers not just the planning officers but all those who feed into the process. He said that he was sympathetic to the fact that the Council had a duty of care and wellbeing to staff and was of the view that the workload balance was not where it should be and was encouraged that interviews were taking place for additional staff.

Cllr. Gruen requested that it be minuted that with the agreement of the Panel that the Joint Plans Panel had great concern that something needed to be done about enforcement. He said that there needed to be co-operation between Planning Services and Legal Services to get on and uphold the integrity of the planning system.

Cllr. Gruen also spoke about a couple of applications which had been brought to Plans Panels which had been deferred on the day of the meeting due to additional information being submitted at the last moment by the applicant. Cllr. Gruen said that it was not acceptable as many people had been in attendance at the meeting including Ward Councillors and members of the public some who had taken time off work.

Cllr. Gruen asked Legal Services if it was possible to have a cut-off date for the submission of additional information.

It was noted that the Chair of North and East Plans Panel had done an adequate job of explaining the situation and the reason behind the deferral.

It was noted that Planning Services and Legal Services had already discussed this issue and accepted the concerns of the Members and agreed to consider the issue again. However, there were difficulties of imposing such a requirement as an application must be assessed in light of all information (no matter how late it was submitted) as otherwise the Council could be open to challenge and at risk of costs.

The Chair asked for an update on the 20% increase in planning fees and was informed that the Chief Planning Officer had taken a report to Corporate Development Department for approval for spend of approximately £500,000 expected money from fees. The Chief Planning Officer has been slightly hesitant to go progress this proposal due to the national elections and the fact that changes to legislation and or government policy in relation to this issue may be made. It was also noted that other income from the increased fees may not be ringed fenced to the Planning Department.

The Panel requested extra training on the Planning Services Self-Serve so that they were able to check on applications for approval and decisions within their wards.

The Panel discussed issues in relation to the following points:

·  Training for Members of Plans Panels

·  Submission of late information from applicants and objectors

·  Long term sick in Planning Services

·  Prosecution outcomes and outstanding cases

·  The need for a dedicated CIL officer

·  Possibility of a pre meet prior to Plans Panel – similar to those held before Scrutiny Boards

RESOLVED – To note the report and to receive a further performance report in six months’ time.

Cllrs, S Arif and R Grahame left the meeting during this item.

Cllr. A Khan left the meeting at the end of this item.