The Head of Business Support and Regulatory Services will brief Members and answer questions on this topic.

The Group Manager for Public Protection and Enforcement distributed a briefing note on the Planning Review Methodology which outlined the Scope of the Review, its outcomes and timetables and its methodology [copy attached to the signed Minutes].  He explained that the decision had been made to carry out an in-depth review of Planning Services and its Development Management function due to the recognition that it was operating under severe pressure as a result of:

·         the SAMDev review;

·         the 5 year land supply requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework;

·         the voluntary redundancy scheme; and

·         problems with recruitment and retention of suitably qualified and experienced staff. 

It had been acknowledged that these issues had had an impact on the quality and performance of the service provided.  

Referring Members to the Briefing Note, The Group Manager for Public Protection and Enforcement explained that the scope of the review was set out on page 1.  He stated that it was important to evaluate the effectiveness of Development Management from the customer’s perspective, to look at internal reviews previously undertaken and to conduct an objective review of the system in a concentrated period of time.  He continued that he felt well qualified to undertake an objective review as he did not have a planning background which could influence his views.  He added that this review was particularly important at this time to ensure that Development Control was in a healthy position before the Government introduced commercial markets to the sector. 

The Group Manager for Public Protection and Enforcement explained that the process mapping exercise had not revealed any surprises but had revealed much about what needed to be done when going forward.  The qualitative research had shown that processes needed to be designed to ensure customer focus and simple processes. 

He continued that all the recommendations in the report were all evidenced based and supporting evidence would be appended.

A Member observed that Development Control was not just about customer satisfaction, but about developing better communities and facilitating development that was in the interest of all.  He expressed concern that the Government was introducing commercialism into this function. He congratulated the Planning Section on continuing to provide such a good service despite the enormous pressures it had encountered.  He commented that the training received by Members of the Planning Committee was not rigorous enough, nor well attended by Members.  The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing, Regulatory Services and Environment responded that the training offered to Members of the Planning Committee had equipped them for the decisions they needed to make but it was unfortunate that it was not well attended.  He acknowledge that the lack of knowledge shown by some Members who had not undertaken the training offered had led to poor decisions being made on occasion. 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Housing, Regulatory Services and Environment agreed that it was important to gain the views of all users of the planning service and it was important to achieve the right outcomes for all. 

A Member commented that as a Member of the Planning Committee she often felt under siege from conflicting interests of Developers and Communities, she expressed concern that service redesign may increase these conflicts.  The Planning Services Manager explained that the managing of the public’s expectations was an important issue.  It had become clear that people expected immediate replies and were not always willing to accept the professional advice given.  The public had the expectation that the Local Authority would defend their perspective regardless.

Concern was expressed regarding the Government’s plan to open the planning system to private companies and market forces.  A Members commented that private companies were not subject to the same statutory duties and community responsibilities that the Local Authority were. 

The Chairman observed that at a previous meeting the Committee had recommended the establishment of a Planning Enforcement Task and Finish Group, which in light of the review being undertaken was not longer current.  He suggested that Members establish a Planning Review Task and Finish Group, which he felt would be more useful. 

Members requested sight of the draft report.  The Group Manager for Public Protection and Enforcement explained that the Director of Commissioning was the project sponsor and as such was expected to make comment on it with the Chief Executive.  Once this had been completed it was at the Directors discretion to decide how the report was circulated and further developed.   This was particularly important as it contained sensitive HR issues.  The Group Manager for Public Protection and Enforcement confirmed that he expected to produce an executive summary of the report.  He agreed to discuss its circulation with the Director of Commissioning. 

RESOLVED:

That a Planning Review Task and Finish Group be established.  The Group Manager for Public Protection be given delegated authority to produce the Terms of Reference for the Group with the agreement of the Chairman of the Enterprise and Growth Scrutiny Committee.