Agenda item

To advise the Regulatory Committee of performance statistics on Development Management, Building Control and Planning Enforcement.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out statistics relating to development management and building control since the last meeting.

• The Chair asked Marc Dorfman to comment on the recent announcement by Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons. Mr Dorfman reported that Mr Pickles had originally named Hackney as the worst-performing Local Planning Authority in England, and had later corrected this to Haringey. This was on based on the criterion relating to performance for determining major applications within a 13-week time-frame, for the year 2011/12. Mr Dorfman reported that performance for 2012/13 was improving, with 2 of 4 major applications so far determined within the target.
• Mr Dorfman outlined some of the major applications for 2011/12, which included several very large and complex schemes, some applications which had only missed the target by days and some where there had been difficulties getting the s106 agreement signed, but he acknowledged there were some schemes which could have been better managed. While all of these applications could have benefited from a more efficient approach,  it was noted that some were always going to take longer than 13 weeks to determine, on account of their complexity.
• Mr Dorfman advised that performance in respect of appeals and approvals was positive, and that the service had introduced the Design Panel, more design assessments, more consultation, including pre-application discussions involving applicants and local residents, and was looking at the introduction of performance monitoring and management.

• The Committee thanked Mr Dorfman for his outline. It was acknowledged that, while the circumstances of the announcement could have been better, and the selection of the specific criterion on which it was based clearer, Haringey received relatively few major applications compared with some other boroughs, and performance on determining these within the 13-week target had not been acceptable.
•  Cllr McNamara asked whether it was the case that the Leader and Cabinet Member had been in possession of inaccurate information when they had challenged the DCLG’s figures; Mr Dorfman responded that the information on which the Secretary of State’s announcement was based had not been in the public domain at the time when the announcement had been made, and it had taken time to obtain the data from the DCLG in order to advise the Leader accordingly. It was agreed that a letter should be written to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to clarify what information he was provided with in order to respond to the Secretary of State, and whether this needed to be corrected at any point subsequently. In response to the direct question of whether the Cabinet Member had been provided with incorrect information at any point, Mr Dorfman replied that this was not the case.
• The Committee asked about the reasons behind the disappointing performance with regards to the determination  of major applications within 13 weeks. Mr Dorfman advised that in 2010/11 there had been very few major applications being submitted, and he had taken the view that it was better to negotiate in order to reach a point where officers could recommend such applications for approval, in order to bring them forward; in 2011/12, it was reported that the Council had received 9 of the largest applications it had ever had to deal with, and this had had a negative impact on the statistics. Mr Dorfman reported that figures were now improving, and that over the past five months two of the four major applications received had been determined within 13 weeks. With regard to resources, it was reported that there had been some staff reductions, but that resources were not significantly less than in comparable London boroughs.
• Cllr Ejiofor expressed concern regarding the performance levels reported, and that there had so far been no clear analysis regarding the underlying issues for the poor performance. It was felt that there must be a way of determining applications more quickly, and that it was not acceptable simply to report on the performance; information must also be provided on the actions being taken to remedy the situation. There was a need to balance the requirement to resolve applications in a timely manner with ensuring that correct decisions were bring made. It was agreed that a more detailed report on the work being undertaken to address the performance issues against this target should be brought back to the next meeting of the Committee.
•  Mr Dorfman advised that work did need to be done to improve the timeliness of decisions on major applications, but that performance in respect of appeals was very good, which indicated that accurate decisions were being made. 
• In response to a comment from the Committee regarding why information not being in the public domain meant that it was not possible for the Cabinet Member to be supplied with accurate data, Mr Dorfman advised that the Cabinet Member was provided with the statistics held by the Council, but that they then needed to check with the DCLG the specific way in which their statistics had been presented in order to ensure that the Council’s own data was presented in a comparable way.
• The Committee asked whether any complaints had been made regarding the non-determination of applications; Paul Smith advised that there had been an appeal in respect of non-determination at 163 Tottenham Lane, but that the appeal had been won by the Council.
• It was clarified that an application was classified as a major application if it was over 1,000m2, or more than 10 residential units.
• The Committee expressed concern that 13 weeks may not be sufficient time for particularly large or complex applications where extensive consultation was required, and asked what the penalty was where this target was not met. Mr Dorfman advised the current penalty was that determination of the application could be taken out of the hands of the local planning authority. Under the new Growth and Infrastructure Bill, local planning authorities who were failing on one of two criteria, major applications and appeals, would be put on special measures, meaning that decisions would transfer directly to the Secretary of State.
•  Concern was expressed that, by trying to meet the 13 week target for some complex applications, there was a risk that officers would be more focussed on timescales than the quality of the work being undertaken – there was a need to meet standards in respect of both timeliness and professionalism.
• It was suggested that there should be a split between planning and regeneration, as it was felt that these two aspects of the service could conflict with one another, for example with the Spurs and GLS developments. Mr Dorfman accepted that the planning applications such as Lawrence Road, Spurs and GLS, could have been handled more efficiently, but that the level of consultation required meant that they would always have taken a long time to resolve. It was felt that development and economic investment had continued to be delivered during the recession and that while both planning and regeneration came under the same department, it was not felt that there was a conflict between the two.
• The Committee asked about the current status of the planning application relating to 19 Lansdowne Road, as two Planning Sub Committee meetings had been held since a decision had been taken that the application should be determined by the Sub Committee rather than delegated decision. Mr Smith advised that officers had been asked to undertake further work on the assessment of the issues around demolition within a Conservation Area.  
• The Committee emphasised the need for target timeframes to be taken seriously, as if these were not met in future there was a chance the local planning authority could be put on special measures. It was noted that not all of the major applications had been of exceptional scale or significance and that poor performance was not acceptable – it was necessary to review the processes to identify where the delays were occurring and to deal with these.
• In summary on this topic, the Chair confirmed that the Committee wanted a report back from Mr Dorfman and the Director of Place and Sustainability on the measures being put in place to address performance against this target, for the next meeting of the Committee. The Chair confirmed that he would communicate all of the points raised by the Committee directly with the Cabinet Member and Director.

• With regards to the statistics for Building Control, it was noted that the Council was performing well, and that building control services was a competitive field. Mr Smith advised that developers had the option to use alternative approved inspectors rather than the Council’s in-house building control service, in which case the Council had no involvement unless there was an enforcement issue. It was reported that there was no formal research comparing the quality of external building control inspectors with Council services but the fact that the Council was able to be competitive in this area and had retained local business on the basis of its performance indicated that the Council was performing well.
• Concerns were raised that serious accidents could occur on a site where an external inspector was being employed, and the Council would not necessarily be made aware of this.
• The Committee asked if it would be possible for the Council to provide building control services to other local authorities, in response to which Mr Dorfman advised that there were opportunities to work in partnership with other authorities, and the Council already had 9 such contracts in place. Expanding the provision of the Council’s services further in this manner would require a business case.
• It was confirmed that building control was a statutory function, but that there was no requirement for this to be provided in-house and could be contracted out.
• In response to a question from the Committee, it was confirmed that the Council would act in the event of a building becoming unsafe regardless of whether an external inspector had been used, as dangerous structures was an area where the Council had a statutory obligation to take action.
• The Committee were encouraged to contact Bob McIver if they required any further information around building control issues.