07
The Committee received and considered the Interim Head of Planning's report which presented an update on the on-going review of the Planning Department, specifically the Development Management Team.
The Interim Head of Planning delivered a presentation to the Committee which focussed on the current issues faced by GYBC as follows :-
- Staffing and capacity
- Structure
- Application numbers and backlog
- Performance
- Planning fees
- Planning enforcement
Councillor Williamson sought clarification on whether the £100,000 from Government referred to within the report was a one off payments, it was advised that Officers believe this to be a one off payment.
Councillor Wainwright asked with regard to the pre application stage and whether this was charged at the same rate as a planning application. It was advised that these were pre discrepancy fees and were based on a cost recovery basis. The Head of Planning advised that applicants were encouraged to use the pre application stage.
Councillor Wainwright further asked if Officers were to request an extension of time whether this could only be requested once, it was confirmed that there could be multiple extension of times applied.
Councillor Hammond commented with regard to the "have a free go" procedure and whether it would not be more simple if applications were to be refused that the applicants were then advised of appeal process rather than given a free go. It was advised that the Council receives no money from appeals. Councillor Hammond further asked if the department had any control of the types of application they could accept, it was advised that all application have to be received and dealt with.
Councillor Jeal referred to the pay scales of the Officers and the recent golden hello package that had been offered to try and recruit into posts, he asked whether rather than offering an incentive for 2 years why this could not just be factored into the salary and offered as a whole. it was advised that there was a need to create an attractive package to recruit although there was a also a need to ensure a budget was available.
Councillor Jeal asked if applicants did not submit the correct documents were Officers able to simply turn down these applications. The Development Control Manager reported that Officers had always tried to work with the customer, however he advised that now Officers were looking to remove the ability to have a free go if refused there was a need for Officers to look at negotiation protocols as it was acknowledged that removal of this facility would see some resistance from Developers.
Councillor Grant advised that he was concerned of the reputation of the Council when seeing significant delays in planning applications being considered as there was a need for the Council to continue to encourage a growth in housing stock, he referred to an application he himself had submitted which had taken a considerable amount of time to be considered. The Head of Planning advised that the teams were balancing the limited resource in place but that a future solution was to look at more ways people could self serve therefore updates to the website were being looked at to assist with this.
Councillor Thompson asked with regard to an out of hours service for enforcement and the need for this service as he commented there was currently no way of contacting anyone if any works were completed illegally over the weekend or out of office hours such as the removal of trees. It was advised that this would be possible although this would be at cost, and with the Council currently under financial pressure this was unlikely to be a service that could be offered.
Councillor Thompson further commented that whilst he accepted there was a need to look after Developers, he also felt that the public concerns should be considered at all times and he felt that if a policy wa sin place that did not permit the development then this should be refused.
Councillor Murray-Smith referred to the single Enforcement Officer in post and asked whether this was by design or was this is a similar situation to the struggles of recruitment. It was advised that this was the only post for this area, Councillor Murray-Smith asked if this was not a risk by only have one person within that area of expertise. It was advised that although there was only one Officer in this post, there was expertise within the team who under delegated powers would be able to make decisions if this post holder was to not be available.
Councillor Robinson-Payne commented that was a need to look at and consider growing individuals within the current team in order to try and retain staff.
In summarising the Chairman advised that the Committee :-
- Welcomed the Interim Head of planning's report and thanked him and his Officers for completing this piece of work.
- Notes the lack of Planners and the pressures of recruitment
- Identified the risk of only having one Enforcement Officer, if that post holder were to leave
- Note that website improvements are to be made to make the service more user friendly
- Commented on the need for consideration be given to an out of hours service
- Identified the need for the speeding up of communications within the department
- The need for upgrading of IT within the department.
The Committee agreed that an update report should be brought back to the Committee in April or May of 2024.