APPENDIX

Development Control - Service Plan Review

SUMMARY

Service Context

The Development Control Service of the County Council is a specialised strategic service relating to planning control of minerals and waste management developments and the County Council's own development. The workload includes determining approximately 65 minerals and waste applications and 100 applications for County Council development as well as giving strategic advice to district councils on over 220 planning applications each year.

Regular inspections are carried out at over 200 authorised mineral and waste sites in the County to monitor the progress of operations and to check compliance with planning conditions and legal agreements. Inspections are also carried out at sites where unauthorised minerals and waste development is noted, usually in response to information or complaints from the public If not resolved, enforcement action is taken, usually under delegated powers and in conjunction with the Chief Executive, including the serving of Enforcement and Stop Notices if necessary.

The County Council's Development Control Service is distinct from that operated by district councils which deal with the bulk of planning applications. Similarly it should not be confused with Highways Development Control, which is also administered by the County Council but relates to advice on highway and transport aspects of planning applications at both county and district levels.

The overriding purpose of the service is to facilitate the delivery of the County Councils sustainable development objectives as set out in the Corporate Strategy and other principal plans, including the Structure Plan, Minerals and Waste Local Plan and Natural Resource Initiative.

Opportunities and Threats

Minerals and waste management developments, and to some extent county council development, are often perceived to be `undesirable' especially by those who are directly affected by their impacts. On the other hand, the service helps deliver infrastructure and development which the community overall needs. Accordingly, the Development Control Service places the County Council in a difficult position - potentially criticised from one side and unrecognised for what it achieves by the other.

This conundrum is likely to never be resolved but this Review provides the opportunity to clarify how the Development Control Service operates, address public perceptions of the Service; make it more open and transparent; and increase awareness of the need for such development and the role of the service in meeting that need through the determination of planning applications and the monitoring and enforcement of development.

An Audit Commission report, Development Control and Planning, published in 2002, contains advice on planning including a checklist of areas of improvement. The report is based on the experience from a number of inspections of planning and development control. The main points of the checklist (attached) are set out under the following headings:

· Focussing on what matters to local people;

· Assuring the quality of development;

· Enhancing customer care;

· Reducing delay in development control; and

· Reinforcing management systems to assure quality

Key External Factors

The Service provides a statutory function based on national and european planning and environmental legislation; government policy guidance; and an adopted spatial planning policy framework. Development tends to be demand-led - sand and gravel for new housing; waste transfer stations for household waste collections; new classrooms for a growing population. Social, economic and environmental constraints limit the choices for locating such developments. On the other hand, public perception and increasing opposition to such development tends to lead to confrontation.

These drivers require that the Development Control Service be operated at high standards of not only professional and technical competence, but also probity, transparency and responsiveness to all its stakeholders.

Stakeholder Views

A limited stakeholder dialogue has been undertaken, both internal and external, to provide a `reality check' on the provisionally identified improvement themes.

Overall the main theme that emerged related to issues of communication - what is happening with applications? - how is development progressing? - what the Development Control service does? - what role do stakeholders have in the Service and how can they access it?

What are we trying to achieve?

Much of the activity of the development control service is of a `frontline' nature, delivering to the public. The headline `outcomes' relate to BVPIs for determining planning applications. However, the service also links with other Environment Department objectives, including the proposed Minerals and Waste Development Framework and Natural Resource Initiative. The service should also be accessible, transparent and focussed on quality.

The main service contribution to the Corporate Strategy is to `stewardship of the environment'. However, the role of minerals and waste planning in achieving other corporate aims of `achieving economic prosperity', `building strong and safe communities', `improving services' and `developing councillors and staff' are relevant. How the service contributes to equalities and e-government also needs to be considered.

Where are we now?

Strengths and Weaknesses

The service is a `statutory function'; has a significant input in `stewardship of the environment'; and processes and monitors applications for development which is necessary for society to `achieve economic prosperity'. The service generates a significant income (£100K) from planning application fees against an expenditure of £350K. (£250k salaries; £100k expenses/consultants) The service benefits from staff with a wealth of knowledge and experience in minerals and waste planning and monitoring.

The service is resource hungry, and the demands on it are relentless. There are continuing demands for development while expectations from the public, particularly objectors, grows at a considerable rate. On the other hand, public perceptions of the service are limited and negative.

Evaluation of the Service's performance is currently limited to performance targets are set both nationally

· 60% of mineral and waste planning applications determined within 13 weeks (BVPI 2002/03 was 55%);

· a BVPI customer satisfaction survey in 2000/01 limited to planning applicants which achieved a 80% rating (BVPI no longer applicable);

and locally

· Respond to 90% of `complaints' within two working days (compliant);

· Respond to 75% of consultations from district councils/adjoining planning authorities within 28 days (compliant);

· frequency of site monitoring visits - quarterly (not compliant).

Means of judging other aspects of the Service including standards of service delivery; assessing `added value'; evaluating broad based customer satisfaction surveys and; reviewing the quality of development outcomes from development control decisions are needed.

In short, we know more about the inputs to the service than what it actually delivers.

What are the gaps we must bridge?

Internal consultation identified resources as the main shortcoming, not lack of experience, expertise or commitment. The demands on the service do not match the resources available. These demands require prioritising to better match the resources available. The first stages in this would be to develop a `service delivery' policy which sets out procedures and targets and to improve systems management.

The limited external consultation identifies communication as the main shortcoming. Applicants and third parties want to know what is happening with applications and implementation. Many people are unaware of the Development Control Service; what role they have in it, or indeed how they can access it. Openness and transparency are considered essential components to a Development Control Service because of its inherent democratic and public service character. Essential within this would be to develop an information and communications strategy.

How will we go about it?

Service Improvement Options

1. Publish a Development Control Service Policy/Charter, including the setting out procedures and targets involved in delivering the service. This would require protocols on preliminary negotiations on planning applications, registration and publicity processes, consultation requirements, reports and legal agreements (S106s). This is considered important, as there is no reference manual for officers, Members and the public on the service. The advice, A Good Practice Note for County Matter Planning Authorities - A Drive for Quality, published by the Planning Officers' Society in 2002, provides an appropriate model.

2. Develop an Information and Communications Strategy that would cover implementation of E-Government as it applies to the DC service. This would include publishing information on the Web, but some attention would be given to other communication formats, like the telephone. In order to facilitate this an examination of improving the access for staff, interested parties and the public to the databases on for instance application progress and site inspections would need to be considered.

3. Improving Outcomes by establishing stronger linkages between planning decisions and policy including the emerging community strategy. The issue of measuring `added value' and meeting outcome targets related to development will have to be addressed.

4. Enhancing Enforcement by reviewing the current protocol and investigating a `risk based' approach to action as recommended by the Audit Commission

Additional Issues

The cross cutting themes of Sustainable Development, Equalities and Crime and Disorder will have to be addressed as an integral element of these improvements. The E-Government theme is already covered as a main option.

Action Plan

The first part of the Action Plan for service improvements comprises:

1. Adoption of a Development Control Service Policy setting out service standards so that all stakeholders understand what is being provided and to what level - September. 03 - using existing staff - High Priority.
Risk - exposure to complaint if Service not to standard

2. Carry out a user satisfaction survey `piggy backed' on the statutory Planning Best Value Indicator survey this autumn - December 2003 - using staff identified for the survey
Risk - low as largely informative

3. Review use of the Annual Members Tour of sites to examine outcomes of planning decisions - July 2003 - using existing staff
Risk - tbd

4. Instigate site inspection strategy based on `environmental risk' improve site inspection recording - October 2003 - using existing staff
Risk - tbd

5. Complete installation of and commission new DC System - September 03 - resources deployed
Risk - tbd

Improvement Plan