Agenda item

(Voting: 9 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

The Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services introduced the report and said the planning service still required improvement but it was improving.  He felt the Scrutiny Committee debate had been very good and he said officers were doing all they could to improve the service.  The effects of COVID and the phosphate issues made evaluation of improvements in the service premature. The Planning Reimagined group would meet again in 6 months time and would report again to District Executive.

In response to questions from Members, the Portfolio Holder for Protecting Core Services the Director for Service Delivery advised:

• The number of planning enforcement reports had increased as people had worked from home and were more aware of their area but the staffing level had also increased.  There was also now an on-line reporting system and there had been an increase in reports since this had been introduced. 
• The majority of planning applications received were householder applications but there were still minor and major applications submitted.  Statistics on the number and type of applications would be circulated to Members.
• The fees for householder applications were lower and they often took more time to assess than allocated.  The recent amendments made to the Scheme of Delegation would save officer time as most applications would not be determined at Area Committees.
• It was very difficult to prevent breaches of planning permission.
• Planning conditions were clear and there were some repeat offenders who pushed the boundaries of their permission.  Some cases were being progressed to court action and it was hoped this would be a deterrent to other.

·         Meetings with Area Chairmen and planning officers had now started.

·         Due to the size of the proposals, many solar panel applications were automatically referred to Regulation Committee under the two star referral process.

·         Consideration that planning briefings should be compulsory for all Councillors.

·         Planning application validation had been reduced to less than one week which was a great achievement and would be maintained.

·         An interim Lead Specialist and a Technical Lead Specialist had been appointed to the planning service.

·         The interim Lead Specialist had been liaising with Town and Parish Councils to provide specific training to them, focusing on their role as consultees in the planning process.

·         The interim Lead Specialist would also be providing further training to all Councillors on the planning process, probity and the Member role as refresher training.  Any changes in legislation would also be communicated to all Members.

During discussion the following points were made:-

·         Review of 2 star reference of planning applications to the Regulation Committee was discussed at the Area Chairmens meeting the previous day.

·         The Scrutiny Committee members had expressed their gratitude to the officers who had assisted in the flooding event in Chard earlier that week.

At their meeting earlier in the week, the Scrutiny Committee had questioned how SSDC’s planning service performance compared to other local and national authorities.  They also raised questions regarding ward member involvement in applications going forward to Regulation Committee, concerns regarding timeframes and processes for notifying parish / town councils and receiving their comments, concern about enforcement which was often a controversial subject at parish meetings, a training video for members or parishes, and, if the planning re-imagined workshops would be reconvening in the near future?

It was noted that these questions had been answered at the meeting by the Director for Service Delivery. 

At the conclusion of the debate, the majority of Members were content to propose the recommendations for confirmation by the Chief Executive.

(Voting: 9 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)