Agenda item

To consider the template for the annual review of Planning Committee overturns. 

25.1          The report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 41-49, provided a template for the annual review of Planning Committee overturns.  Members were asked to consider the template.

25.2          The Head of Development Services advised that, at its meeting on 8 January 2019, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had received a report on the new Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and had requested that the template for the annual review of Committee overturns be brought back to the Committee.  At the meeting on 9 April 2019, it had subsequently been agreed that a populated version of the template be submitted for consideration.  By way of background, she explained that the Planning Committee could make a decision which was different from the Officer recommendation.  Planning Officers prepared reports for the Committee which were debated and certain issues may arise which resulted in Members taking a different view; sometimes this changed the outcome from an approval to a refusal or vice versa.  This may reflect a difference in the assessment of how a policy had been complied with, or different weight may be attributed to material considerations.  The template attached at Appendix 1 had been designed to provide sufficient information for the statistical analysis required by the Protocol for Councillors and Officers Involved in the Planning Process and to enable an annual review of the reasons why decisions differed to the recommendation.  It was noted that the Protocol, which had been refreshed in December 2016, included an annual review of Committee decisions and this was the first stage of that process. 

25.3          Members were advised that Part 1 of the template comprised a statistical analysis of all decisions made by the Committee and the percentage of decisions that had changed from a permit to refuse and vice versa.  The template covered a three year period from April 2016 to March 2019 with a three year summary and information for each individual year which would allow an assessment of trends.  Part 2 of the template provided a qualitative analysis for the previous financial year i.e. 2018-19 with full details of each application where the Committee decision differed from the Officer recommendation, together with the narrative for that e.g. site location, proposal, summary of reasons for recommendation etc. 

25.4          During the debate which ensued, a Member indicated that whilst the information was interesting, he was unclear what could be done with it.  The Head of Development Services advised that it was intended to help identify any recurring issues or emerging trends, for example, if there was a lack of clarity on a particular policy.  The Business Transformation Manager explained that the annual review of Planning Committee decisions required by the Protocol for Councillors and Officers Involved in the Planning Process would be a check and balance to ensure that everyone involved was doing the best they could.  It would include all Committee decisions, not just those where decisions had been made against Officer advice, and there would be an opportunity to use this in planning training by referring to particular decisions and relating them to policy which could be useful for both Officers and Members.  In response to a query as to when the report would be considered by the Planning Committee and what that Committee would be asked to do with it, the Head of Development Services reminded Members that if applications were refused there was an opportunity for applicants to appeal the decision so it was useful to have a six month grace period, as such, it would be taken to Planning Committee in December 2019 or January 2020 and it would be down to the Committee to decide what it wanted to do with the information.

25.5           A Member raised concern that there was no summary page setting out the patterns or trends that had been identified by Officers and that was something he would like to see introduced.  Another Member asked whether any comparisons could be drawn with other local authorities on a national basis.  In response the Business Transformation Manager advised that, although she could ask other authorities in the county whether they went through a similar process, each authority had different criteria which made comparisons very difficult.  Notwithstanding this, Officers would give this some consideration going forward.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 48 of the report and indicated that Reference 18/00543/FUL Staverton Connection, Gloucester Road, had been permitted by the Committee against the Officer recommendation to refuse but no reasons had been provided for that decision.  The Head of Development Services apologised for the omission and advised that the reason for the decision - as stated in the Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting - was that “the economic benefits of the proposal would outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt and character and appearance of the area”.  A Member noted that the reason was subjective and the Head of Development Services clarified that the issues presented in Committee reports were material considerations for the determination of the application which Officers had balanced; however, Members could weigh those considerations slightly differently as they had done in this instance.  In response to a query as to how this was specified, she stressed that there was no formal weighting – decisions must be based on policy and although some parameters would be more clearly defined than others, Members were at liberty to make certain choices within that. 

25.6           A Member noted that Part 2 of the template only contained data from 2018/19 and indicated that he would like to have seen the information for previous years in order to identify patterns, particularly in terms of policy impact.  The Head of Development Services indicated that 2018/19 was considered a stable point to start the analysis in planning policy terms given the status of the Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  If Members wanted to see the information for the previous two years, resources could be directed to that but she warned that it would be time-consuming.  Another Member indicated that the figures at Page No. 45 of the report did not add up in terms of the number of permissions that had changed to refusals and vice versa which should be 17 and 34 respectively.  In terms of comparisons with other local authorities, he felt it would be nice to know how many had gone to appeal and whether they had been successful.  He agreed that Part 2 of the template should have included three years’ worth of data in order to identify trends and that it would have been helpful to know what conclusions Officers had drawn from the information.  He requested that the call-in section be amended to give a reason for the application going to Planning Committee for determination, for instance, had it been called-in by a Member, was there an objection from the Parish Council etc. and Officers undertook to make that amendment going forward.  The Chair sought a steer from Members as to whether they wished to see Part 2 of the template populated back to March 2016.  The Head of Development Services reiterated that this would require considerable Officer time which would inevitably impact on other projects - it was noted that the Review of the Planning Enforcement Plan had been deferred from the current meeting to 22 October 2019, partly to allow it to be considered alongside the Development Services Improvement Plan but also to focus resources on this piece of work.  A Member recognised the implications of undertaking this additional work and indicated that he was happy to make a proposal on that basis.  This was seconded and, upon being taken to the vote, the motion was lost.  It was subsequently

RESOLVED          1. That the template for the annual review of Planning Committee overturns be NOTED.

2. That it be AGREED that Part 2 of the template be populated going forward as opposed to retrospectively for the two years preceding 2018/19.