Contact: Roger Stow, ext 6731 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That the `Minerals and Waste Planning in Hampshire: Annual Report 2002/03' be published and distributed to those with an interest in minerals and waste planning in the county.

(ii) That delegated authority to be granted to the Director of Environment to make further minor amendments.

(iii) That the Development Control Service Improvement Plan be endorsed, subject to budget decisions to be made for 2004/05.

1.2 The Environment Policy Review Committee and the Regulatory Committee will have considered the attached report at their meetings on 3 December 2003 and 26 November 2003 respectively. Their views will be reported orally at the meeting.

2. Reasons

2.1 `Minerals and Waste Planning in Hampshire: Annual Report 2002/03' meets a commitment in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan to prepare monitoring reports on an annual basis and is necessary for the review of that Plan.

2.2 The Development Control Service Improvement Plan identifies priorities for improvement, which have staff time and financial implications.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 The options considered were not to publish the Annual Report or endorse the Development Control Service Improvement Plan.

3.2 These options were rejected since, apart from the requirements of the adopted Local Plan and its review, an annual monitoring report is identified as a statutory requirement in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently before Parliament. The Annual Report is also a means of tracking performance; is considered `best practice' for minerals and waste planning authorities; is a technical reference document within the authority and for the industry and others and has been well received in a user survey and in the technical press. The Service Plan Review was a pilot for a `service planning' process, which is now used throughout the Council. The Development Control Service Policy and other actions identified in the Action Plan will set out service standards so that all stakeholders understand what is being provided and to what level.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor J K Glen

8432/RS

APPENDIX

Contact: Roger Stow, ext 6731 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 `Minerals and Waste Planning in Hampshire: Annual Report 2002/03' includes information on monitoring and enforcement of development; the determination of planning applications and progress on the monitoring and review of planning policy for minerals and waste. The report concludes that national and local performance targets for minerals and waste are only partially being met; actions are being taken to improve the service provided; but that resources are being stretched so that a review is required. The Committee is recommended to support the publication of the Annual Report and the actions taken to improve the service.

2. Background

2.1 The Annual Report (attached as Appendix 1) meets a commitment in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan to prepare monitoring reports on an annual basis:

(i) to include the results of the regular monitoring of minerals and waste development and to summarise any action taken to secure compliance with planning controls (Annual Report Section 2 - Monitoring and Enforcement);

(ii) to include information on planning decisions (Annual Report Section 3 - Planning Applications and Appeals); and

(iii) to summarise the results of surveys undertaken and to report on the monitoring of the Authorities' policies for minerals and waste, including the extent to which they are being met or complied with and the success or failure of them in achieving the planning objectives of the Authorities (Annual Report Section 4 - Planning Policy; Section 5 - Meeting the Need for Minerals; and Section 6 - Meeting the Need for Waste Management).

2.2 This is the sixth Annual Report. The format is similar to previous years but more emphasis is placed on performance and actions. It is primarily for the financial year 2002/03 but includes information on minerals and waste development in Hampshire up to the end of October 2003. Information from different sources may be for different periods.

3. The 2002/03 Annual Report: Main Findings

3.1 The Annual Report identifies that the monitoring and enforcement targets set out in `Development Control (Enforcement) Policy', approved by the former Planning and Transportation Resources Sub-Committee in October 2000, are not being met. These require all active mineral and waste sites to be visited at least four times a year, inactive sites at least once a year and complaints responded to within two days. During 2002 only 84% of the permitted sites (the same proportion as active to inactive sites) received recorded monitoring visits, with less than three visits per site monitored. This is primarily because monitoring staff time is also taken up with processing detailed submissions following grant of planning permission. In practice, a number of high profile sites require monthly or more frequent visits. Complaints are normally responded to on the same day but the recording system requires updating and action has been taken to do this within the next three months.

3.2 The Annual Report identifies that the targets set by Government for determining planning applications were met in 2002/03. These require at least 55% of `County Matter' applications to be determined within 13 weeks, excluding those with Environmental Statements and Mineral Review applications. During 2002/03 over 65% of these applications (40/61) were determined within 13 weeks.

3.3 Between 2000/01 and 2002/03 the number of `County Matter' planning applications received each year increased from 56 to 94 and the number determined from 48 to 65, an increase of 68% and 35% respectively. The number of applications outstanding to be determined increased from 39 to 63 at the beginning of April 2003. However, many of those applications outstanding required action by the applicant, including the conclusion of legal agreements. Action has been taken to reduce the number outstanding which is now down to 34.

3.4 To maintain and improve the level of service, the Environment Departmental Management Board considered a Development Control Service Plan Review and Action Plan for Service Improvements (copy attached as Appendix 2). This Review identified the following actions:

(i) adoption of a Development Control Service Policy setting out standards so that all stakeholders understand what is being provided and to what level;

(ii) carry out a user satisfaction survey `piggy backed' on the statutory Planning Best Value Indicator survey;

(iii) review use of the Annual Members' Tour of Sites to examine outcomes of planning decisions;

(iv) instigate site inspection strategy based on `environmental risk' to improve site inspection recording; and

(v) complete installation of and commission the new Development Control System.

3.5 The Departmental Management Board adopted the Action Plan and an additional requirement that future Annual Reports review the progress of the implementation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

3.6 The Annual Report identifies that the targets set by Government for minerals and waste planning policy, of an up-to-date Plan adopted in the past five years and the procedures in place for the speedy review of these plans, are only partially being met. The procedures for reviewing the Local Plan in the light of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently progressing through Parliament and a large number of new draft regulations, procedures and guidance being produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Regional Government offices for consultation, are highlighted in the Annual Report Summary.

3.7 The Annual Report identifies, at the 2.7 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) allowed for in the Plan, that a landbank exists of permitted reserves of sand and gravel, sufficient for only five years at the beginning of 2003 with a further 3.8 years provision identified in the Plan. However, sales for the past 10 years have averaged 2.5 mtpa, falling to 2.2 mtpa in 2002. A number of sites are coming to the end of their permitted reserves and the rate of new planning permissions is not keeping pace with sales. With a few exceptions, this is mainly a reflection of the industry failing to submit applications rather than of the planning process. The future provision for sand and gravel and other minerals will be reviewed in the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework in the light of revised forecasts and apportionments identified in the Regional Minerals Strategy Consultation Draft published by South East England Regional Assembly in September 2003.

3.8 The Annual Report also identifies a remaining permitted and licensed landfill capacity for non-inert waste sufficient for only two years at 2000/01 input rates. In practice this is now largely in only three remaining sites. However, the infrastructure necessary to meet Hampshire's current Household Waste Strategy - energy recovery incinerators, materials recovery, waste transfer and composting facilities - are now in place or being constructed. The future provision for all waste management facilities will be reviewed in the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework in the light of revised forecasts identified in the Regional Waste Strategy Consultation Draft published by the South East England Regional Assembly in March 2003.

4. Comments of the Director of Environment

4.1 Although efficiencies have or are being put in place, the Minerals and Waste Planning Service is constantly striving to meet increasing aspirations of the community. There are over 200 permitted minerals and waste sites in Hampshire at various stages of development. Also there are some 100 minerals and waste planning applications a year currently being processed and about 50 unauthorised activities investigated each year. Furthermore there are an increasing number of appeals against refusal of planning permission and against enforcement action. Accordingly, the meeting of targets is challenging.

4.2 Regulatory Committee Members have previously expressed a desire to increase the use of formal enforcement powers to deal with perceived abuses of the system. Enforcement of planning conditions, or of unauthorised development, is undertaken primarily through negotiation, with formal action taken where necessary. Where formal enforcement action has been taken this has been successful. However, such action is usually only successful when all other means have been explored. Whether formal or informal action is taken, monitoring and enforcement is time consuming and, without the cooperation of the developer, is frustratingly slow for both the public and the authority. The options are either to focus effort where the risk is judged to be greatest or to increase resources. The consequence of focused, `risk based' action is that public expectations that conditions are to be enforced elsewhere are not met, leading to an increase in complaints. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is likely to introduce limited fees for monitoring. If and when fees are introduced, the use and allocation of resources will need to be reviewed.

4.3 Regulatory Committee Members have also expressed concern about the delay in progressing legal agreements once they have resolved to grant planning permission, and the late submission of applications for extensions of time. Progress has now been made in reducing the backlog of applications (see paragraph 3.3), although a number of draft agreements have been with applicants for some time. Progress is also being made in encouraging operators to submit applications for extensions of time well in advance, although there is no statutory requirement for them to do so. Government expects year-on-year improvement in performance, linked to increased application fees and possibly to Planning Delivery Grant. Increasing public involvement in the planning application and appeals process adds to pressures on the service and resources need to be kept under review.

4.4 The review of policy is being given high priority in association with the Materials Resource Strategy. Stakeholder involvement in this process, involvement at the site selection and public inquiry stages are likely to add to pressures on the service and resources need to be kept under review.

4.5 The Minerals and Waste Planning Service has adapted to change over many years to keep abreast of the demands placed on it. Actions have been taken to address these changes and to improve the service, but these actions can also divert resources away from the day-to-day casework. The nature of minerals and waste planning is that programmes and procedures can easily be diverted by major applications, appeals and enforcement, or the need to respond to and influence national and regional policy and initiatives. Resources cannot then meet the demands placed upon them. Changes proposed in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, and the consequent regulations, procedures and guidance, may also impact further on the service.

4.6 Members are invited to comment on the performance achieved by the Minerals and Waste Planning service identified in the Annual Report and the actions taken to maintain and improve the service.

Recommendation

That the Executive Member for Spatial Strategy be advised of the Committee's views on:

(i) the performance of the Minerals and Waste Planning Service as identified in `Minerals and Waste Planning in Hampshire: Annual Report 2002/03'; and

(ii) the Action Plan for Service Improvements.

8413/RS

APPENDIX 1

Minerals and Waste Planning in Hampshire: Annual Report 2002/03

· Summary

1. Introduction

This is the sixth Annual Report which meets a commitment in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan to prepare regular monitoring reports on minerals and waste.

The format is similar to previous years but more emphasis is placed on performance targets and actions. It is primarily for the financial year 2002/03 but includes information on minerals and waste development in Hampshire up to the end of October 2003.

The Report concludes that national and local performance targets for minerals and waste are only partially being met; actions are being taken to improve the service provided; but that resources are being stretched.

· Contacts for advice on minerals and waste planning and related matters in Hampshire are listed in Appendix 1.

2. Monitoring and enforcement

The Annual Report identifies that the monitoring and enforcement performance targets, set out in the `Development Control (Enforcement) Policy' adopted in October 2000, are not being met.

These require all active mineral and waste sites to be visited at least four times a year, inactive sites at least once a year and complaints responded to within two days. During 2002 only 84% of the permitted sites (about the same proportion as active to inactive sites) received recorded monitoring visits, with less than three visits per site monitored. This is primarily because monitoring staff time is being spent on processing detailed submissions following grant of planning permission. In practice, a number of high profile sites require monthly or even more frequent visits. Complaints are normally responded to on the same day but the recording system requires updating and action has been taken to do this within three months.

The targets are not being met for a number of reasons including:

· an increasing number of sites (225) with planning permission, 53 new sites since 1 April 2001;

· increasingly complex operations, particularly waste developments;

· a consequent increase in the number and complexity of planning conditions requiring the submission of details for determination;

· a consequent increase in the number and complexity of planning conditions to be monitored and enforced;

· an increase in the number of Liaison Panels to be serviced; and

· an increase in complaints about the operation of sites to be responded to.

To improve the frequency, efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring visits and the recording of visits and complaints the following actions are being taken:

· a temporary, part-time monitoring officer has been employed, increasing the number of staff to 2.4;

· the Site Inspection Report has been redesigned so that a copy is now signed by and left with the operator;

· a system of `risk based monitoring' is being developed;

· a new computer-based planning application system will be extended to include monitoring and enforcement.

· Minerals and waste sites are listed in Appendix 2 and indicated on Maps.

3. Planning applications and appeals

The Annual Report identifies that the performance targets set by Government for determining planning applications were met in 2002/03. These require at least 55% of `County Matter' applications to be determined within 13 weeks, excluding those with Environmental Statements and Mineral Review applications. During 2002/03 over 65% of these applications (40/61) were determined within 13 weeks.

Between 2000/01 and 2002/03 the number of `County Matter' planning applications received each year increased from 56 to 94 and the number determined from 48 to 65, an increase of 68% and 35% respectively. The number of applications remaining to be determined increased from 39 to 63 at the beginning of April 2003. However, many of those applications outstanding required action by the applicant, including the conclusion of legal agreements. Action has been taken to reduce the number outstanding which is now down to 34.

To maintain and improve the level of service the Environment Departmental Management Board has adopted a Development Control Service Plan Review and Action Plan for Service Improvements. This Review identifies the following actions:

· adoption of a Development Control Service Policy setting out standards so that all stakeholders understand what is being provided and to what level;

· carry out a user satisfaction survey `piggy backed' on a statutory Planning Best Value Indicator survey;

· review use of the annual Members' Tours of sites to examine outcomes of planning decisions;

· instigate a site inspection strategy based on `environmental risk' to improve site inspection recording;

· complete installation of and commission the new Development Control System; and

· future Annual Reports to review progress of the implementation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

The processing of planning applications is resource intensive, particularly given the complexity of `County Matters' and the interest they generate with the public. To improve the efficiency of the service, a new computer-based development control system went on-line in July 2003 to provide an electronic data link for applications from registration, through determination, to implementation and monitoring. Additional, temporary administrative staff was employed while the new system was being implemented. This arrangement has been extended to maintain improvements in the service and handle a continued increase in workload and will be reviewed in due course.

The number of appeals against refusal of planning permission and against enforcement action has also increased to date. Appeals are particularly resource intensive, both in administration and professional input, even where consultants are employed. The actions identified should help to address these peaks in workload.

· Minerals and waste planning applications determined or remaining outstanding are listed in Appendix 2.

4. Planning policy

The Annual Report identifies that the performance targets set by Government for minerals and waste planning policy, for an up-to-date Plan adopted in the past five years and the procedures in place for the speedy review of these plans, are only partially being met.

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently progressing through Parliament is a fundamental review of the way authorities carry out their planning functions, including the format of development plans and community involvement. In tandem, a large number of new draft regulations, procedures and guidance are being produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Regional Government offices for consultation.

The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan was finally adopted in December 1998 and ran to December 2001 with a seven year landbank for land-won sand and gravel to December 2008. A review of the minerals part of the Plan commenced with a series of stakeholder meetings in 2001/02; an Issues Paper published for wider consultation in June 2002; and a study undertaken of the mineral resources in Hampshire, to ascertain where future resources might be worked. The aim was to publish a deposit version of the review of the minerals part of the Plan in late autumn 2003.

However, the three strategic planning authorities reconsidered the approach to the review in the light of comments arising from the stakeholder dialogue and the implications of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. A review of waste policies is now being progressed and an integrated Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (HMWDF) is likely to be put on deposit in late autumn 2004. The HMWDF will also form part of the Materials Resource Strategy launched in September 2003.

The resources committed to the review of the Plan are to be enhanced with the temporary transfer of an additional officer. However, the changes brought about by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, and the planning input necessary for the Materials Resource Strategy programme, will need to be kept under review.

5. Meeting the need for minerals

The Annual Report identifies that at the 2.7 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) allowed for in the Plan, a landbank exists of permitted reserves of sand and gravel, sufficient for only five years at the beginning of 2003 with a further 3.8 years provision identified in the Plan. However, sales for the past ten years have averaged 2.5 mtpa, falling to 2.2 mtpa in 2002. A number of sites are coming to the end of their permitted reserves and the rate of new planning permissions is not keeping pace with sales. With a few exceptions, this is mainly a reflection of the industry failing to submit applications rather than of the planning process. The future provision for sand and gravel and other minerals will be reviewed in the HMWDF in the light of revised forecasts and apportionments identified in the Regional Minerals Strategy Consultation Draft published by South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) in September 2003.

6. Meeting the need for waste management

The Annual Report also identifies a remaining permitted and licensed landfill capacity for non-inert waste sufficient for only two years at 2000/01 input rates. In practice this is largely in only three remaining sites. However, the infrastructure necessary to meet Hampshire's Household Waste Strategy - energy recovery incinerators, materials recovery, waste transfer and composting facilities - are now in place or being constructed. The future provision for all waste management facilities will be reviewed in the HMWDF in the light of revised forecasts identified in the Regional Waste Strategy Consultation Draft published by SEERA in March 2003.

7. Good practice

Mineral working and subsequent restoration, with or without backfilling, is undertaken for the benefit of the community at large. In the majority of cases, this is undertaken without lasting environmental damage. Indeed, there are examples which have produced wider environmental benefits such as in wildlife habitat creation, in some cases of International importance or restoration to recreation. Examples are included in the Annual Report of where minerals and or waste developments in Hampshire have produced wider benefits in the archaeological and ecological fields, or where such developments have raised wider issues.

Most operators in Hampshire belong to the minerals or waste trade associations which require their members to adhere to Environmental Codes of Practice. Many larger minerals and waste companies operate Environmental Management Schemes both for their organisations and for individual operations. The County Council supports the principle of the use of these codes and management schemes and seeks to work with the minerals and waste industries so as to minimise the impacts of working and maximise the wider benefits to the communities affected through restoration and access.

Conclusions

Although efficiencies have or are being put in place, the Minerals and Waste Planning Service is constantly striving to meet increasing aspirations of the community. There are over 200 permitted minerals and waste sites in Hampshire at various stages of development. Also there are some 100 minerals and waste planning applications a year currently being processed and about 50 unauthorised activities investigated each year. Furthermore, there are an increasing number of appeals against refusal of planning permission and against enforcement action. Accordingly the meeting of targets is challenging.

· Monitoring and Enforcement -

Members have expressed a desire to increase the use of formal enforcement powers to deal with perceived abuses of the system. Enforcement of planning conditions, or of unauthorised development, is undertaken primarily through negotiation. Where formal enforcement action has been taken this has been successful. However, such action is usually only successful when all other means have been explored. Whether formal or informal action is taken, monitoring and enforcement is time consuming and, without the cooperation of the developer, is frustratingly slow for both the public and the authority. The options are to either focus effort where the risk is judged to be greatest or to increase resources. The consequence of focused, `risk based' action is that public expectations that conditions are to be enforced elsewhere are not met, leading to an increase in complaints. If and when fees for monitoring are introduced by Government, resources will need to be reviewed.

· Planning Applications -

Members have also expressed concern about the delay in progressing legal agreements once it has been resolved to grant planning permission and the late submission of applications for extensions of time. Progress has now been made in reducing the backlog of applications, although a number of draft agreements have been with applicants for some time. Progress is also being made in encouraging operators to submit applications for extensions of time well in advance, although there is no statutory requirement for them to do so. Government expects year-on-year improvement in performance, linked to increased application fees and possibly to Planning Delivery Grant. Increasing public involvement in the planning application and appeals process adds to pressures on the Service and needs to be kept under review.

· Planning Policy -

The review of minerals and waste policy is being given high priority in association with the Materials Resource Strategy. Stakeholder involvement in this process and involvement at the site selection and public inquiry stages are likely to add to the pressures on the service and resources need to be kept under review.

The Minerals and Waste Planning Service has adapted to change over many years to keep abreast of the demands placed on it. Actions have been taken to address these changes and to improve the Service, but these actions also divert resources away from the day-to-day casework. The nature of minerals and waste planning is that programmes and procedures can easily be diverted by major applications, appeals and enforcement, or the need to respond to and influence national and regional policy and initiatives. Resources can then be stretched so that service objectives need to be reviewed. However, changes proposed in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the consequent regulations, procedures and guidance, may also impact further on the service.

Alison Quant

Director of Environment

October 2003

The information in this document can also be made available in a large print format. To obtain a copy, or for further information on the contents of the sixth Annual Report, please contact Roger Stow in the Minerals and Waste Planning Group of the Planning Department on 01962 846731 or email [email protected]

APPENDIX 2

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 Council's 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 Resources 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 never to 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:

· Focusing 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 Resources Initiative. The service should also be accessible, transparent and focused 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, grow 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 which are both set 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 of 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 Development Control 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 2003 - 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 - to be determined.

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

Risk - to be determined.

5. Complete installation of and commission new Development Control System - September 2003 - resources deployed.

Risk - to be determined.

Improvement Plan

8413Appx2/RS