Agenda item

Report DRR/16/072

Members considered a progress report on the processing of planning applications and Planning Enforcement.  The report focussed mainly on the following issues previously raised by the PDS Committee:-

·  the service by telephone;

·  planning application performance;

·  planning appeal performance;

·  the Building Control process; and

·  Planning Enforcement.

The Chief Planner gave a brief outline of the report.  The Bromley planning application performance by time taken had improved and was now exceeding national and local targets.  The telephone service for customers was one of the highest measured performances in the Council with 73% of calls being answered within 60 seconds.  The percentage of planning appeals allowed after refusal by the Council was around 34% in 2015/16 which was around the national average level.  The Council’s Building Control Service was in open competition with external Building Control providers.  Improvements in communication had been made by the Planning Enforcement Team following previous issues that had been raised.

As staffing levels had remained similar in proportion to application volumes, the improvement in performance could mainly be attributed to efficiency of staff, in particular the dedication of managers and staff in the Development Control team. At present, there were several staff working on short-term contracts and two vacant posts, one of which had just been filled.

The national definition for minor and major applications is used in Bromley.  Taking residential development as an example, minor applications were for proposals up to 9 dwellings and major applications consisted of schemes containing 10 or more dwellings.  Other applications related to residential extensions etc. 

There were currently 3 fte Investigation Officer posts within the Enforcement Team and one Manager of Planning Enforcement, Appeals and the Administration Team.  Administrative support was available to Enforcement Officers.  A temporary post might be filled to assist with the heavy workload subject to further approvals.  The Chief Planner agreed to send Members information on the number of outstanding complaints and enforcement cases.  Referring to communication issues, Councillor Tickner reported residents often submitted complaints and following receipt of an acknowledgement (which could take anything up to 10 days) heard nothing further at all.  In responding to Councillor Tickner’s observations, the Chief Planner reported that improvements had been achieved overall as highlighted in the recent compliments quoted in the report and in the evidence of pursuing cases in the Courts again as referred to in the report.

It was noted that of the 594 new cases concerning breaches of planning control, 32 enforcement notices had been issued; this amounted to 5% of the total cases which was not untypical for many Councils.

Councillor Tickner was concerned that officers may have a conflict of interest having taken payment to give pre-application advice but then finding the application is refused at determination stage.  The Chief Planner reported that pre-application advice was common practice in most Councils.  The majority of applicants already had consultants on board and the feedback from officers did have a cautionary notice attached to it.

RESOLVED that progress with planning application performance, planning appeal performance, Building Control and Planning Enforcement be noted.