Agenda item

To receive a presentation for discussion on the work being carried out to improve the Council’s planning processes. 

The panel received a presentation from Vincent Lacovara (Head of Planning) on the development of an improvement plan for the Council’s planning service. 

1.            Presentation

The following points were highlighted in the presentation: 

·         The planning department were at an early stage in developing a service improvement plan.  Much had been achieved since 2018 when two halves of the service were combined (development management and strategic planning and design) but there were more improvements to be made and challenges ahead. 

·         The views of the Regeneration and Economic Development Scrutiny Panel were welcomed. 

·         All the teams in the department were working together to improve delivery, working more across teams, rather than in silos. 

·         One of the problems that the service had had was in recruiting planning officers.  This had improved from a 50% vacancy rate in 2018 to a handful of vacancies now.  The numbers of agency staff had also been reduced. 

·         Service capacity had been increased including the creation of a new design team and the setting up of a Design Review Panel.

·         Performance had improved significantly recently against statutory and corporate targets.

·         Challenges included perception and image of the service, customer services, communications, responsiveness and accessibility, the Government changes to the planning and building control systems, performance issues in enforcement, impact of Covid, the need to improve service culture, recruitment and retention of staff, budget pressures, the need to support good design and outcomes through a pre application service and an inconsistent delivery of housing targets. 

·         Lots of work had been done improving the determination of applications but more needed to be done at the pre-application stage.

·         The Council would like to be recognised as one of the best planning authorities in London, positively and proactively engaging with communities and stakeholders to enhance places and enable good growth. 

·         The key themes for an improvement plan included improving communications, culture and morale, resources and capacity, team structure, policies and processes, performance management, learning and development, technology, customer journey and commercialisation. 

·         The key areas of focus included team culture, member engagement, customer service, planning committee training programme, pre application and PPA service, planning enforcement, ongoing recruitment and a commercial plan. 

2.            Questions/Comments

2.1       Thanks to the officers for the report and support for the proposals to address the problems, as there was a feeling that significant improvements were needed, particularly in customer service.  Many residents complained that they were unable to speak to planning officers in person. 

2.2       Concern in relation to the culture of the organisation and its perceived neutrality. There was a perception that Council favoured private developers.  This was not the case. 

2.3       Concern that the Council was too slow to address enforcement issues and that developers were able to game the system and get away with inappropriate development.      

2.4       Progress on improving the culture of planning had been made, starting by bringing together the whole team, combining the expertise of existing officers as well as bringing in new people.

2.5       Neutrality was key to the planning process.  It was essential that officers should be seen to be impartial.  All assessments were made against approved policy.  However, it was also important to be positive and pro-active and to optimise any possible planning gains.

2.6       When enquiries were made it is best to work with developers and to help make sure everyone can benefit from any scheme.  The pre-application process can be very valuable for shaping development. 

2.7       Improving responsiveness was important and was a focus for improvement.  Any delays were not a result of a lack of professionalism but a result of work pressures. 

2.8       Andy Higham and Jeannette Walsh were working on improvements to the enforcement service.

2.9       Focus had been put on improving the speed of determination of  applications rather than the pre-application stage as this was what was measured in Government statistics.  But focussing more on the pre-application stage would enable decisions, once submitted, to be made more quickly. Issues often arose from trying to negotiate in too short a timescale, after an application had been submitted. 

2.10    Recruitment problems were not unique to Enfield but were an issue across London and the whole country as there was a national shortage of skilled staff.  Enfield had done well to recruit as many new staff as it had.  It was now important to make sure that they stayed. 

2.11    Councillor Greer agreed that the questions identified at the end of the presentation were relevant.  Perception, image, customer service and member engagement were key.

2.12    There was a perception from some residents that it was easier to gain planning permission in the east of the borough than in the west.  Officers affirmed that this was not the case, but it was something that it was useful to be aware of.  If there were similar perceptions around, they would like to know. 

2.13    Introducing more customer satisfaction surveys was something that was being considered.  A survey had been carried out last year and several things acted upon as a result, including improvements to the website and to help ensure that the process was clear, timely and efficient. 

2.14    The statutory timescales were for a decision to be determined within 8 -13 weeks - dependent on extension.  However, if a scheme were appealed it could take many months or even years before a final decision was made.  This would depend on the scale and complexity of the proposals.  A public enquiry would extend a timescale considerably. 

2.15    A new pre application service had been introduced, formalising what had previously happened informally.  This was now subject to a fee, but it was hoped that formalising the service would lead to improvement and enable more resources to be attached to this area.  Better consideration at a pre-application stage would save time and problems later on. 

2.16    It was important to emphasise that consideration of planning applications always had to take account of planning policy.  People were often concerned about issues that were not planning matters and did not understand why they could not be taken into account when decisions were made. 

2.17    Covid had had a big impact on the service during the first lockdown but not so much since, as risk assessments had been carried out and work had continued.  Community engagement had been confined to online as face to face meetings had not been possible. 

3.            Summing up by the Chair

The Chair summed up by thanking the officers for their presentation and work to improve the service.  She looked forward to a future update which she hoped would show further improvement.