Update on the Implementation of the Review of Planning Services Fit for the Future, including:

·         Update on actions from LGA Review into Planning.

·         Accessibility and transparency around Section 106 and CIL.

·         Planning Enforcement following a Councillor Call for Action approved by the Overview and Scrutiny Board on 13 March 2024.

The Board considered a report which provided an update on the Planning, Housing and Climate Emergency Service of the Future Project and the response to the Councillor Call for Action on Planning Enforcement.  The Cabinet Member for Place Development and Economic Growth advised that the Council had tried to bring in additional staff but this had not resulted in reducing the backlog of Planning Enforcement cases (500 which had been impacted by Covid-19 and unable to be significantly reduced) and that the Director of Pride in Place was looking to find a solution looking at a system-wide approach and reviewing how the Council manages enforcements and complaints with a new Enforcement Policy and complaints form being developed which would prioritise the action being taken on enforcement cases.

Councillor George Darling provided a verbal update on his concerns around public perception and the lack of enforcement undermining the Planning Service.  He raised concerns around capacity; comparisons to national data; failure to deal with the backlog of cases; how Torbay compared to Plymouth City Council on enforcement; and concern around a revised Enforcement Policy and new complaints form and if they would dilute the process.  A statement was read out on behalf of Mr Carl Taylor which highlighted concerns and provided an example of an enforcement case and Mr Nigel Goodman (Maidencombe Residents Association) provided verbal evidence in respect of concerns around Planning Enforcement and the impact that lack of enforcement had on the community.

The Board asked a number of questions in relation to how the funding for Planning compared to other local authorities; how many enforcement cases had been reported in 2023 and 2024 and had resulted in issuing an Enforcement Notice; what was the rationale around the new Enforcement Policy and would that weaken or simplify the process; what improvements would be made and when will residents notice the impact of the work around enforcement; if a person phones up to say someone has cut down a tree with a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on it how would that be dealt with under the new system; was the blocker a lack of capacity in the Enforcement Team or Legal Team; what action had been taken to address the five recommendations from the Board on 6 September 2023; were there any enforcement cases that were out of time to deal with that could be taken off the list; what was the reason that some of the green completed actions in the Improvement Plan were marked as yellow; how have service users been involved in the new Enforcement Policy; the data in the Improvement Plan was hard to read, what assurance could be given that the Planning Service had turned a corner; what was the baseline and benchmarking data from the start of the project; Planning was an area of great concern and interest from the public, what consideration had been given to creating a Continuous Improvement Board similar to the one for Children’s Services; the lack of suitable data and benchmarking in the report; accessibility and relevant data on the Council’s website; and a lot of focus was being put on high priority cases was there a risk that those in the middle would get missed through the prioritisation process.

Members were informed that the reason for the new Enforcement Policy and complaints form was to ensure that they were fit for purpose and reflected new legislation and policy, taking into account relevant prioritisation of resources and how and when we communicate with the public/applicants/agents etc. in order to make the best use of officer’s time.  This would look at the point of a complainant and help determine if and how to investigate and inform the most suitable pathway to an appropriate outcome.  It would ensure a more place focussed approach and Planning Officers have visited areas such as The Strand and Debenhams to help understand their role in place shaping and redevelopment.  Planning Officers were also working with other Teams e.g. Legal Services, Highways Team, the Tree Officer in SWISCo to ensure a co-ordinated approach to dealing with enforcement issues.  Consultation was being carried out with the Agent’s Forum and Neighbourhood Forum with the Council’s Inclusion Officer involved in this work.

The Board was advised that a sustainable solution for enforcement needed to be put in place, starting with the new Enforcement Policy and complaints form in order to determine the correct level and type of resource to address the backlog and manage new cases.  Extra resource had been trialled and not worked and therefore this new approach was being developed to inform any future resource requests.

Members were advised of the consistent improvements across a range of performance indicators for the Planning, Housing and Climate Emergency Services over the last six months particularly around development management, but that they were not yet consistent enough to close the Project.  This included a co-ordinated approach and one which was forward looking at issues based on data and quality of decision making.  It was proposed that the Project would be closed in June and that the continued work and monitoring would be part of the business and normal for the service.  The Director of Pride in Place gave assurance that it was appropriate for the Project to end in June as sufficient progress had been made against the objectives of the Project in order for performance to be monitored through the normal governance channels, including via Overview and Scrutiny, and regular meetings were held with the Director of Pride in Place and senior Planning Colleagues as well as with the Cabinet Member for Place Development and Economic Growth to ensure that they are aware of any issues and could instruct action as appropriate.

Members raised concern that there was no written data produced for the regular update meetings with officers and the Portfolio Holder and the Cabinet Member for Place Development and Economic Growth agreed to work closely with the Chairwoman of the Planning Committee to find a way to monitor Planning performance on a regular basis.

It was note that a briefing would be provided to all Councillor in July on the Planning Service for the Future.

Resolved (unanimously):

1.         that the Director of Pride in Place provide a written response to the Board on:

a.         the mechanism requested at the meeting held on 6 September 2023 ‘to ensure that there is a suitable mechanism in place for case officers to update Ward Councillors on appropriate applications in their ward’;

b.         how many enforcements have been triggered in 2023 and 2024 and how many of them had been finalised;

c.         how does the funding of Torbay Council’s Planning Service compare to other similar local authorities and if we are average or higher; 

d.         what percentage of the Planning Budget is the £35,000 overspend; 

2.         that future reports to the Board include clear comparison data to help them understand how Torbay Council’s performance compares against other similar local authorities;

3.         that the Director of Pride in Place be recommended to review options to include relevant key performance data on the Council’s website to help to provide assurance to those who have an interest in planning as well as ensuring the information around CIL and Section 106 is updated;

4.         that the Director of Pride in Place be requested to establish a target for enforcement cases so that this can be included in future performance reports to monitor delivery against; and

5.         that an update on the conclusion of the Planning, Housing and Climate Emergency Service of the Future be presented a future meeting together with details of the new draft Enforcement Policy.