Agenda item

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented Members with the performance of Planning Services for quarters 1 and 2, 2019-20.

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer covered planning performance and activity for the period 1^st April to 30^th September 2019.

This report was presented by the Head of Development Management and was split into three sections with Members invited to comment after each section. Members were informed of the following key points:

·  There had been a decrease in application numbers compared to the same period last year. This seemed to be an issue nationally although Leeds have received more applications than other core cities in relation to major developments;

·  Income and fees had increased and was just over the expected target of £56,000;

·  S106 monies received was just over £2.3 million in this reporting period with 26 new agreements received;

·  £6.5 million of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) had been invoiced in this reporting period;

·  2,191 decisions were made in this reporting period this is 11% lower than the same period last year with 85.6% of majors being dealt with within timescales. This compared nationally with 88%, but is still well above the national target to avoid designation;

·  Plans Panels had made 54 decisions. The workload of the Panel also included a number of pre-applications and position statements;

·  92 new appeals had been received compared to 85 new appeals for the same period last year. The Planning Inspectorate made 97 appeal decisions; 82.5% of the appeals were dismissed in the same period last year, 77.4% of appeals in Leeds were dismissed, compared at a national average of around 67%. In the same period last year, 77.4% of appeals in Leeds were dismissed;

·  The number of enforcement cases received in the first two quarters of 2019/20 has been high, with 746 cases received. The number of cases on hand has been reduced to approximately 900 maintaining a long standing service objective to keep cases under 1000. As such the workload of the service remains substantial;

·  86 enforcement and other notices had been served this year so far which is an increase on the last reporting period. Leeds continues to take more formal action than other core cities which reflects the importance that Members in Leeds put on the service;

·  84 formal complaints had been received under the Council’s Complaints Procedure. Members’ attention was drawn to the table at point 3.7.1 which showed that there had been a decrease in the numbers received in comparison with the same reporting period last year. This was seen as a positive sign;

·  Staffing within the service seems to be relatively stable at present. However, there is still some instability within the Compliance and Enforcement Service which will require replacement recruitment to enable the ongoing high workload.  The service had been awarded £506,000 which had been as a result of a bidding processing to supplement staffing within the enforcement service to tackle issues within the Green Belt;

·  Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) can now be viewed via an online map hosted by Leeds City Council website. It is hoped that in future to digitalise and make available other data sets to make information for customers and stakeholders more easily accessible;

·  Members were advised that the service was currently drawing up a job description to address climate emergency issues in relation to planning. However, the release of this post was on hold due to budgetary constraints;

·  Members were advised that planning fees were set nationally.

Members’ discussions and officer responses to their questions included the following:

·  The performance of the service in relation to decision making. It was noted that returns are sent to Government and are published on a national website;

·  The city is still receiving applications on allocated sites and other major schemes which is maintaining the growth contribution to the city’s economy;

·  Members were pleased to see that CIL monies are now being received by Community Committees and Parish Councils. However, they were of the view that information in relation to how the money was being spent should be included within the annual performance report to full Council and to the Joint Plans Panel. Members had concerns on the delays of receiving CIL money, it was a view that penalties and surcharges should be served where CIL payments were delayed.

·  It was noted that appeals were challenged where relevant, however, Members thought that the process needed to be more robust. It was a view that reports should be presented to Plans Panels on the outcomes of appeals so that lessons could be learnt;

·  Members raised the issue on the quality of presentations and suggested that presentations should include more details, materials and in some cases models to assist Members with their decision making. It was noted that the current use of CGI’s was useful. It was also noted that there is also a plan to make a computerised 3D model of the city so that models of proposed developments could be slotted into the model;

·  Members were assured that where developments were causing serious harm and the service could demonstrate that they had been reasonable, the service would pursue formal action and in fact served more notices than other core cities in the country. Members were advised of the process and informed that some cases took a considerable period of time to resolve, particularly where formal action was involved due to the potential for appeal to the planning inspectorate and then court proceedings. Also cases were left open and sites monitored until the service was satisfied that there would be no further action required;

·  Members were informed that staff wellbeing sessions were being utilised to help address the pressures on staff. Issues were also being addressed through staff appraisals, some external run sessions had taken place to address issues around mental health and wellbeing with more sessions planned;

·  It was noted that the use of S215 notices was low; the Chair requested that some benchmarking should take place with other authorities and also seek good practice in the use of S215 notices. It was suggested that this could be linked to climate emergency with the tidying up of areas, planting of trees and pollenating flowers. The Chair requested that a report be brought to a future Joint Plans Panel;

·  Members were encouraged by the increase in digitalisation and approved of the online TPO map.

·  It was noted that it was important to maintain performance on decision making, to avoid appeals against non-determination leading to poorer design, and that the budget should be maintained accordingly.

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

Cllr. Cohen arrived at the meeting at 14:30 during this item.

Cllrs. J Heselwood and A Khan vacated the meeting at 15:00 during this item.

Cllr J McKenna left the meeting at 15:25 during this item.

Cllr S Hamilton left the meeting at 15:45 at the end of this item