Agenda item

Report DRR14/100

In April 2013, the Development Control Committee endorsed a revised Outline Planning Improvement Plan as a framework for improvements to the Planning Service. 

Members considered updates on improvements made to the Planning Division’s telephone service to customers and on planning application performance.

The Chief Planner gave a presentation in relation to Customer Service Performance and reported the following:-

·  A new telephone system had been installed and calls were now being dealt with efficiently.

·  The volume of applications being dealt with had increased by 10%.

·  25% of the Development Control Team had been lost during June-September due to staff ‘moving-on’ or resigning.  This however, was rectified by hiring six new members of staff who started in October-November.

More attention and improvement was needed in dealing with applications under delegated authority - 15% of applications were submitted to Committee and attempts were being made to reduce this level.  The number of applications refused was 25% compared with the national average of 12%; this, however was due in part to the policy regime in Bromley, having to take into consideration Areas of Special Residential Character; Conservation Areas and the Green Belt area.  Bromley’s recent refusal rates were significantly higher than Bexley and Richmond Councils.

The Chief Planner confirmed that Bromley’s maximum threshold of 3 dwelling units for applications to be decided under delegated authority was set in accordance with Bromley’s Constitution which, if minded to do so, Members could amend.  Councillor Auld asked if a threshold figure of 5 or 6 units could be established to see if it would make any difference to the number of applications being submitted to Committee. 

Improvements across the board were also being sought in regard to appeal costs against the Council.  Councillor Auld stated that nearly 50% of applications were dismissed on appeal and was concerned about a lack of consistency between Inspectors as some appeals having been refused several times were then given approval at a later date.  The Chief Planner confirmed that Inspectors do take into account previous appeal decisions where relevant to the latest proposal.

Councillor Dykes had received many complaints concerning a lack of contact and information from planning staff and the length of time taken for case officers to be assigned to individual applications.

Councillor Michael referred to the objectives set out in the Outline Planning Improvement Plan and stated there was still a long way to go.  Targets were not being met in regard to both major and minor applications and Councillor Michael questioned the reason for this.  The Chief Planner referred to the reasons in the report and in recent months the staff turnover.

Members were informed that a higher than average proportion of applications were submitted to Committee however, this was not solely because the application contained more than 3 dwellings.  Any application could be contentious (i.e. loss of light or amenity) and the Chief Planner had every confidence that Members were well-placed to identify such applications and ‘call’ them in.

Councillor Morgan was surprised to note the high rate of refusal of applications and asked that the reason for this be investigated. 

The Chief Planner reported that 56% of applications had been dismissed and 44% allowed upon appeal.  The national average allowed upon appeal was approximately 35%.

RESOLVED that progress with customer service and planning application performance be noted.