Minutes : Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 18/10/2004

Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 18/10/2004
Minutes

MINUTES of the MEETING of the ENVIRONMENT AND LEISURE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE held on 18th October 2004 at 4.00 p.m.

(To be read in conjunction with the Agenda for the Meeting)

*	Mr R J Gates (Chairman)		Mrs L S R Hodgson
*	Mrs M V M Hunt (Vice-Chairman)	*	Mrs S R Jacobs
	Mr L C Bate		Dr P M Marriott
*	Mr M J Blower	*	Mrs P N Mitchell
	Dr J F A Blowers	*	Mr J R Sandy
*	Mr M W Byham		Mr J M Savage
*	Mr R D Frost		Mrs J A Slyfield
	Mr P Haveron		Mr A E B Taylor-Smith
	Mrs P Hibbert

* Present

Mr P Betlem, Mr B A Ellis, Mrs A E Mansell and Mr A Rayner attended as substitutes.
Mr C H Mansell and Mrs J R Keen were also in attendance.

37. MINUTES

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 13th September 2004 were confirmed and signed.

38. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Mr L C Bate, Mr P Haveron, Mrs P Hibbert, Mrs L S R Hodgson, Dr P M Marriott, Mr J M Savage, Mrs J A Slyfield and Mr A E B Taylor-Smith. Mr P Betlem, Mr B A Ellis, Mrs A E Mansell and Mr A Rayner attended as substitutes.

39. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

There were no disclosures of interest made.

40. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (Agenda Item 5, Appendix A)

The Committee received a report reminding Members of the terms of reference of the review of Development Control. The Committee heard evidence from John Anderson, Waverley's Development Control and Policy Manager, the Planning Officers Society and a number of high performing local authorities. Members had an opportunity to ask questions after each presentation.

i) John Anderson - Waverley's Development Control and Policy Manager

Mr Anderson gave a presentation around the slides produced at

Annexe 1

. In summary the Committee was informed of the problems that had faced the planning department. Customers had experienced problems with the speed with which applications had been considered. There had been inconsistency with pre-application advice, policy interpretation, customer care and enforcement. The planning department had experienced problems with the recruitment and retention of officers, mismatch of skills to tasks, antiquated IT and a lack of a performance culture.

However, it was emphasised that there had been recognition of Waverley's respected and hard working staff, sound policy base and that there were good outcomes in terms of decisions. There had also been innovative approaches with the rural economy Beacon Council award, linking housing and planning.

Mr Anderson updated the Committee on steps taken to improve Waverley's Planning performance. This included the abandonment of the Area Team approach and the alignment of skills to tasks, new IT systems and the streamlining of procedures, and increasing the opportunities to 'grow' planners including the recruitment of graduates in other disciplines. Mr Anderson informed the Committee that performance management techniques had been introduced in the department and that graphs of individual performance were now produced on a monthly basis.

The Committee was informed that there had been an increase in delegation, with 80% of applications currently delegated.

The Planning Enquiry Team had been introduced to relieve the pressure on the planners, and now dealt with 80% of the enquiries that came into the department.

The Committee was informed that last month, government targets with regard to the key indicators had been exceeded. The main issue that now existed was how this performance could be sustained in the face of increasing workloads and staffing problems of retention and recruitment.

The Planning Enquiry Team was confirmed as being fundamental to the improvements made in the planning department. However, this needed to have long term stability with front line staff having the appropriate knowledge and training.

Enforcement performance had been a lower priority, although an increase in enforcement had been demonstrated, it was still an area of concern. Around 500 complaints a year were now being received.

The Committee was informed that if all government targets are met, Waverley can expect a planning delivery grant of Ł300,000. However, the difficulties of putting together a strategy with uncertain resources to implement this was acknowledged. The Committee was also informed that from next year indicators would measure our performance in drawing up the Local Development Framework.

Members questioned whether reaching government targets on the speed with which applications are considered compromised member involvement and caused 'rushed' decision making. Mr Anderson confirmed that it was Waverley's challenge to put systems in place to develop the speed of considering applications whilst maintaining the quality of the decisions, although he conceded that government targets did concentrate on speed.

Mr Anderson informed the Committee that with regard to Major Applications the Government was promoting pre-application negotiations being undertaken and there was an issue of engaging Members and the public in the pre application work. The use of a Consultative Forum was being considered for major development proposals.

Members expressed concern at the increase in the number of delegated decisions but, Mr Anderson confirmed that this was a result of following the existing approved delegation scheme more fully and consistently.

ii) John Silvester - Planning Officers Society

Mr Silvester, gave the presentation attached at

Annexe 2

. The Committee was informed of the work of the Planning Officers' Society (POS) which represents the most senior professionals and managers of planning functions in the English Local Authorities. In summary, the Committee was updated on the work of the POS including 'Moving towards Excellence' a series of self assessment tools published by POS and I&DEA. Mr Silvester confirmed the key issues which must be addressed in achieving an 'excellent' development control service. This included the following essential factors; policy, customer focus, process and procedures, performance measurement and outcomes. This was available on the POS website at www.planningofficers.org.uk.

The Committee questioned what measures were being implemented to encourage more planners into the profession. Mr Silvester confirmed that the retention of staff was an issue, especially in the South East. Mr Silvester informed the Committee that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister bursary was funding the training of new planners. The local planning authority was advised to provide more resources for staff, train staff and relocate work where possible. It was confirmed that the image of the profession needed changing. The Society also supported the Waverley concept of freeing up the time of professional staff by providing support staff.

The Committee again highlighted the problem of adequate enforcement and that enforcement performance should also be measured and questioned what can be done to solve the problems experienced. Mr Silvester informed the Committee that best value guidance was yet to be produced on this matter. The POS did support major planning contraventions becoming a criminal offence. The Committee was informed that the Enforcement Officers' Association did operate workshops which looked at ways of dealing with common problems.

iii) Nick Ide - Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

Mr Ide gave a presentation on behalf of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council. Mr Ide did confirm that Epsom and Ewell had been identified by the ODPM as one of the 15 worst performers but was one of the 39 most improved, targets had been exceeded and a grant of Ł300,000 had been achieved.

A strategic approach had been introduced, processes analysed and streamlined, an improvement in performance management, a more uniform approach to ICT and there had been an introduction of a customer contact centre. 'Outsourcing' had also been introduced dealing with most householder applications, with more complex work being kept in house. More complex applications now were dealt with by a project planning approach with a target timescale of 13 weeks.

The Planning Committee now met ten times per annum, with 90-95% of applications delegated and the Chairman no longer accepted deferrals at Committee meetings.

Epsom and Ewell still experienced major problems with the recruitment and retention of staff. A fast track system had been introduced and non-qualified persons were recruited with more senior staff taking on 'mentoring' roles. The problem of losing knowledge when staff resigned was an issue being addressed by knowledge management systems.

With regard to enforcement, there had been the training of staff and outside lawyers had been used.

The Committee questioned the process of 'outsourcing' including the role of Members in the process. It was explained that 'outsourcing' had worked effectively and Members could contact the consultants dealing with applications directly.

iv) Steve Carvell - Chichester District Council

Mr Carvell gave a presentation on behalf of Chichester District Council. It was confirmed that since the government had identified Chichester District Council as a poor performer, they had carried out a fundamental review to identify weaknesses, and that government targets had been exceeded

(see Annexe 3)

and the council had received a planning delivery grant of almost Ł1 million over two years.

Mr Carvell explained that planners had competing priorities, in dealing with their essential caseload, answering calls and replying to letters. Mr Carvell informed the Committee that to deal with these problems Chichester had implemented certain E-government initiatives. The website contained guidance notes and comments could be returned electronically. This had helped to reduce the number of calls and visitors to the department. There had also been the introduction of a contact centre. They also proposed implementing a user forum in which there could be on-line submission of SMART forms which could then save on data input.

Chichester had implemented a new departmental structure with the department being separated into North and South areas, in line with the Committee structure, see also

Annexe 4

. There had been the introduction of Assistant Manager Posts who had been given additional responsibility, and there had been an increase in those Officers with delegated powers. Mr Carvell confirmed that Chichester had a high amount of delegation and operated a call-in procedure for Parish/Town Council objections, plus a 'red card' system for Members. They had also found it necessary to use 'outsourcing'.

Managers currently held performance meetings and there had been the introduction of an Improvement Planning Group, which monitored performance.

The Committee was also informed that the number of site visits had been reduced with the introduction of the display of high quality digital photographs at Committee. Their Council had also taken the decision to no longer allow planning decisions to be referred to Council, instead matters that potentially could be contrary to policy were referred to the Planning Applications Referral Committee (PARC) for decision.

The problem of recruitment was still recognised as an ongoing problem.

v) Mark Harbottle - Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

The Committee received a presentation from Mr Harbottle on behalf of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. The presentation was given based on the survey attached at

Annexe 5

Reigate and Banstead had been identified as a poor performing authority. Mr Harbottle stated that this had been partly due to the problem they had experienced with the recruitment of staff and high staff turnover. In dealing with the problem a 'management structure review' was undertaken. They had also increased pay to attract staff, introduced overtime and staffing levels had been increased from 12 to 15 to deal with the workload. They had introduced 'outsourcing' to deal with the householder applications.

Planning application advice was given through a duty desk and the availability of case officers had to be rationed. There was a rate of 93% of applications being delegated. The Committee met four weekly and there had been an introduction of 3 area panels which also met monthly. Area Panels operate as an informal meeting where Members could be briefed, this prevented the need for briefing Members individually. Members gave pre-consideration to applications to help build a consensus before the formal decision.

Planning delivery grant had increased from Ł109,000 to Ł493,000, which was in part to recognise the significant improvement in performance.

Mr Harbottle stated that there had not been an easy solution to the problems experienced and it had taken a lot of hard work. Recruitment remained an issue however and they had found that the recruitment of graduates who could be trained as planners through the local press, remained the best option. They had also looked at attracting and retaining staff with various 'soft factors' which included flexible hours and market supplements.

The meeting concluded at 6.32 pm

Chairman

comms/o&s3/2004-05/041