|
Return
to Agenda
ITEM PN5
PLANNING
& REGULATION COMMITTEE –
24 FEBRUARY 2003
SPEEDING
UP THE PROCESSING OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Report by
Director of Environmental Services
Introduction
- The Government’s
Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) affecting the County Council’s
planning service have been narrowed down to one: the time taken to determine
planning applications. There has been much criticism of this indicator
as a measure of the quality and effectiveness of the planning service.
The House of Commons Committee on Housing, Planning, Local Government
& the Regions recommended this month that "the Government’s measure
of improved performance should take account of the quality of planning
decisions, not simply their speed". In response to the Select Committee,
Lord Rooker, the Planning Minister, agreed that quality was more important
than speed. Nonetheless the indicator currently affects how the County
Council is judged both in its comprehensive performance assessment and
elsewhere. It is therefore important that the Council performs as well
as possible against this indicator.
- The government’s
target is that 60% of major applications (including ‘County Matter’
applications for minerals and waste development) should be determined
in 13 weeks. Sixteen weeks is allowed for applications involving Environmental
Impact Assessment.
- The Oxfordshire
Plan notes this national target, and is likely to state that it can
be met in the financial year 2004/5. Last year only 19% of applications
were dealt with within 13 weeks, placing Oxfordshire in the bottom quartile
for county councils. The target for this financial year is 20% and next
year is 40%. For this year so far we are at 25%.
- The main factors
influencing the speed at which planning applications are processed are:
staff resources, the use of legal agreements, and the willingness to
negotiate with applicants after their application has been lodged.
Recent
Changes
- These include:
- the introduction
of a computerised processing system;
- an increase
in administrative support from ½ to just over 1 fte;
- making the planning
application form, guidance notes and planning charter available on
the council’s website;
- the introduction
of a computerised monitoring system enabling the development control
manager to follow the progress of all applications;
- encouraging
applicants to have a pre-application meeting, and advising them that
failure to do so might lead to delays in processing applications and
an increased risk of a recommendation of refusal;
- returning invalid
applications;
- using conditions
(requiring the erection of signs showing approved routes), rather
than routeing agreements;
- agreeing a timetable
for the conclusion of any legal agreements, and issuing a refusal
if the timetable is not met;
- making it clear
to consultees that failure to respond within the given timescale (usually
three weeks) may lead to a determination of the application without
their views.
- These changes
are being included in the development control section’s code of practice
and in the notes for guidance for applicants as appropriate.
- In terms of staffing,
two experienced development control staff have recently left and a third
is having to concentrate on County Council development applications.
The team dealing with County Matter applications is relatively inexperienced,
with three staff having about one year’s experience between them. It
will take time for them to be fully effective, and this may affect the
County Council’s ability to meet its targets in the short term. One
way of addressing the short term problem might be the routine employment
of consultants as, for example, both Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire
County Councils do. However, this is an expensive option, and is not
recommended at this stage.
Possible
Future Improvements
- There are a number
of other possible ways in which processing time for applications could
be reduced:
- Increasing the
frequency of Planning & Regulation Committee meetings: Currently
the committee meets every 6 weeks. More frequent meetings could potentially
reduce the number of applications which take longer than 13 weeks
to process. However, it could also mean meetings dealing with very
few applications indeed, and this is not proposed at this stage.
- Reducing deadlines
for the preparation of reports: We propose to review internal deadlines
for reports with the setting up of the new Environment & Economy
Directorate.
- Increasing delegated
powers: Existing delegated powers enable the Director of Environmental
Services to determine planning applications where there are no objections
or representations of substance which cannot be overcome by conditions
and where a member does not refer the application to committee. In
the last two years this has enabled 33% of applications to be delegated.
Government advice is that 90% of planning applications should be delegated.
This is unlikely to be practicable with applications as complex and
controversial as many minerals and waste applications.
Nevertheless,
consideration could be given to further delegation to the Director
(in practice to be exercised by the relevant head of service, once
appointed) where the application is clearly contrary to the provisions
of the development plan and the recommendation is one of refusal,
or where the applicant has provided insufficient information, despite
requests, and the recommendation is one of refusal. I am considering
with the Head of Legal Services whether there is scope for more extensive
delegation of applications, and will report further on this issue
if necessary.
- Expansion of
information on the Council’s website: Further information (e.g. guidance
notes on pre-application meetings) could be added to help applicants
make a full and valid application.
- Pre-application
meetings: Although pre-application meetings are already encouraged,
we can extend our efforts to promote them.
- Validity and
sufficiency of information in applications: As a result of early scrutiny
of applications an increasing number are being returned as invalid
with a clear indication of why they are invalid. The 13 week period
only runs from the date that a valid application is received but for
which there is a significant lack of information would be refused.
- Limiting supplementary
information submitted in support of an application: Sometimes applicants
make further submissions on their applications, either to address
concerns of the consultees or for other reasons. Where this submission
is significant the planning authority is obliged to re-advertise the
application, a process which will inevitably lead to the 13 week period
being exceeded. Applicants should have investigated their proposals
with prospective consultees before submission, and it is proposed
to advise them in the notes for guidance that later submissions will
not generally be accepted if they materially alter the application.
- Planning obligations
(legal agreements/unilateral undertakings): These are a major source
of delay, although necessary to implement certain aspects of the development
plan e.g. long term maintenance of sites for nature conservation,
provision of off-site footpaths. We propose to advise applicants to
discuss and where possible prepare legal agreements before the application
is submitted. We are also exploring the possibility of providing some
‘off the shelf’ agreements to cover some of the more common agreements.
- Chasing late
consultation replies: Generally 3 weeks are given for replies, but
the Environment Agency and district councils are given 4 weeks – longer
than the statutory minimum. Nonetheless, these deadlines are frequently
not met. The Environment Agency’s speed of response has improved.
Most district councils still refer consultations on county matter
applications to committee, and this is sometimes a source of delay
(the County Council’s responses to district council applications are
delegated to me in consultation with the relevant Executive Member).
I am continuing to pursue with the district councils whether they
can introduce measures to streamline their responses.
- IT: There is
potential scope for increasing the use of IT in the development control
service, for example by enabling the submission of applications electronically,
making applications (and planning history) available on the County
Council’s website for members of the public to view and comment on
electronically, making greater use of CD storage and GIS. The Government
is keen for local authorities to introduce ‘e-government’. These changes
would, however, have significant budgetary implications.
- Targeting committee
dates: In pre-application discussions the case officer and applicant
could agree a target date for submission of the application. This
would allow better timetabling of an application’s processing.
Financial
and Staff Implications
- Financial and
staffing implications are discussed in the body of the report. Significant
costs could arise from improving IT and from the employment of consultants.
Costs could also arise from failure to determine applications within
the statutory time period, leading to appeals against non-determination.
Flawed decisions could lead to an award of costs against the authority.
RECOMMENDATION
- The Committee
is RECOMMENDED to:
- authorise
the Director of Environment & Economy (or Acting or Interim
Director if applicable) to refuse applications for planning
permission:
(i) which
are, in his/her opinion, clearly contrary to the development
plan; or
(ii) for
which there is such a significant lack of information that,
in his/her opinion, the application cannot be approved;
- note
and support the other measures set out in the report to speed
up processing of planning applications.
DAVID
YOUNG
Director of
Environmental Services
Background
papers: Nil.
Contact
Officer: John Duncalfe, tel: Oxford 815356
Chris
Cousins, tel: Oxford 815459
28
January 2003
Return to TOP
|