Agenda item

To advise on Development Management and Planning Enforcement performance for quarter 3 and January 2014/15.

The Committee considered a report which summarised performance around Development Management and Planning Enforcement for Quarter 3 and January 2015. An addendum report was also tabled summarising the enforcement action taken by Planning Enforcement in Quarter 3.

The AD for Planning noted that the report showed significant improvement in performance from a few years ago, particularly around speed of decisions being taken. A consistent level of performance on major applications and consistent levels of minor and household applications was also noted, against a back drop of rising application numbers. The AD for Planning advised that the appeal performance of the service has steadily improved, which showed an improvement in the quality of decisions taken.

A consistent level of pre-application proposals was noted. From April, the service would change to a paid service for householder pre-applications. A higher demand for the service was expected as a result but it was envisaged that the move to a paid model would also improve quality.

The Committee noted a continued increase in the number of Planning Enforcement enquiries. From 4^th March, Planning Enforcement service requests would be handled by Customer Services. 257 enforcement cases were reported in the last quarter, which was on target to be lower than in previous years. The AD for Planning advised that the table at section 6.8 of the report which showed major application performance was in error - Performance around notification as a result of people who make enforcement complaints, was not correctly recorded in terms of the target figure.

The AD for Planning also advised that the Planning Enforcement service was undergoing a reorganisation of its structure to explore how the service could more effectively respond to complaints

The following further points were raised during the discussion of the report:

• Further clarification was sought on the difference between  appeals made following a decision of the Committee over those made by officers under delegated authority. Officers responded that a number of policies were in the process of being developed to improve performance in this area. From March 2013 to January 2015, 9 applications were refused by Planning Committee. 7 of these were against officer recommendations and 6 of these refusals have been appealed. The AD of Planning agreed to give the Committee a more detailed update on performance around Planning Enforcement appeals and the breakdown of officer vs. Member decisions, in the next performance report.
• In response to a question on whether the Hollybank development in Muswell Hill had been appealed, the AD Planning responded that he was unsure but noted that this would be included in the performance figures for the next quarter.
• In response to issues raised by the Tottenham Conservation Society in a letter about delegated decisions made by Planning Officers, concerns were raised with erroneous decisions being made. The chair responded that she had discretionary powers to hear specific applications at Committee instead of the decision being taken by officers, and agreed that if there was a specific case to discuss then the applicant should speak to her directly.
• A broader point was noted about a significant number of Planning Officers being fairly new in post and perhaps not having much local knowledge and that pressure to meet deadlines and service standards was potentially having an impact on the quality of decisions. Officers responded that the challenge is one of speed over quality and that there was a thorough review process under way analysing the reasons behind cases where there had been a complaint about the decision taken by officers.. 
• Officers advised that a number of staff changes had an effect on enforcement performance in Quarter 3 and would continue to do so into Quarter 4.
• The AD of Planning acknowledged that there was a significant number of temporary staff within the Planning service due to high demand and the fact that it is a highly competitive market. The intension was to look at the offer for Planning Officers and that recruitment would take place shortly.
• In response to query on the number of Planning Enforcement Officers, it was noted that the organisational structure had a full complement of 6 Planning Enforcement Officers, 2 of which are full time staff, 3 are agency and 1 post is becoming vacant.
• The Committee requested that future reports were more consistent in the timescales used for performance measures. Officers responded that the government measured overall performance as a two year cumulative rolling average. It was noted that the Planning Enforcement suite of performance indicators was being reviewed and refreshed for future meetings.

RESOLVED                 

1. That the report and accompanying addendum report on Quarter 3 performance be noted.