Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

Development Services Improvement Plan

To consider the progress made against the actions within the plan and to note that the remaining actions will all be completed by March 2020; should that not be the case, a further report will be brought back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Minutes:

52.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 35-49, which provided an update on progress made against the Development Services Review Action Plan.  Members were asked to consider the report and to note that the remaining actions would all be completed by March 2020 and, should that not be the case, a further report would be brought back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

52.2          The Head of Development Services explained that the Development Services Review was approved by Council on 25 April 2018 and was supported by an action plan to help improve the service.  The action plan had contained 76 actions at the time of approval but considerable progress had been made and, of those, all but 13 had been completed; the report provided an update on the outstanding actions.  Members were reminded that this was not a service plan and the action plan did not represent all of the work that was undertaken by the department.  It was noted that the majority of actions were for the Development Management team and they had been prioritised; this had involved joint working across the Council with IT and Customer Services to improve the service for customers.  She was fully aware of the importance of the relationship between Officers and customers and she regretted that there had been times when the service had fallen short of expectations but she provided assurance that this would be addressed where issues were identified.  With regard to planning policy, the Tewkesbury Borough Plan had reached the Pre-Submission stage; whilst this had impacted on other projects, clearly it was a very important piece of work.  In terms of economic development and tourism, the Growth Hub had now been operational for a year and many compliments had been received about the positive impact on businesses.  In respect of community development, a Member workshop had been held to clarify and define the role of the Place Approach and that had been well received.  The next stage was to ensure it was embedded across the three areas within the borough.  The relationship between place and health was recognised as a key priority for the team moving forward.

52.3           A Member drew attention to Page No. 42, Action B.12 – Review whether to propose Local Development Orders for areas where no permitted development rights - which stated that the action had been suspended for a year in order to enable a cost/benefit analysis to be undertaken but then went on to say that this was now unlikely to be taken forward due to the loss of income predicted and he sought clarification as to the situation.  The Head of Development Services explained that, whilst the majority of areas benefited from permitted development rights, those rights had been removed in some newer areas; permitted development rights allowed properties to be extended without planning permission - within certain limits - if permitted development rights had been removed, a planning application would be required.  In April 2018, when the action plan had been adopted, there was no fee for submitting a planning application if permitted development rights had been removed; however, those applications were quite costly to process so an action had been included to consider introducing Local Development Orders which would reinstate permitted development rights.  Since that time, the regulations had changed and a fee was now required for these applications therefore it may no longer make economic sense to bring in a Local Development Order; this was still being considered but it was unlikely that it would be taken forward. 

52.4           The Member also drew attention to Page No. 44, Action C.2 – Produce Supplementary Planning Document to support introduction of the Joint Core Strategy and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which sets out the relationship between CIL and Section 106 (and Section 278 of the Highways Act) and approach to non-plan compliant schemes – and questioned why the target date had changed from June 2019 to a ‘commencement date’ of January 2020.  The Head of Development Services explained that the CIL had just been adopted by the Council and it was now intended to produce a Supplementary Planning Document to clarify this for the public.  It took at least 12 months for a Supplementary Planning Document to be adopted due to the various consultation stages, and there had also been delays due to recent changes to the CIL regulations which had meant that a lot of work had to be aborted – she wanted to be clear that this would certainly commence in the New Year which was why the target date stated in the action plan was ‘January 2020 commencement date’.  In response to a query as to whether there was a process determining how CIL could be spent, the Head of Development Services clarified there was no formally agreed process but that was included on the forward plan for November 2019; the process needed agreement from all three Joint Core Strategy authorities and the County Council which did take time.  Ultimately, she hoped to have an agreed governance strategy by the end of the calendar year.  The CIL regulation changes meant that it was now possible to spend the money in ways that had not been allowed 12 months earlier.  She reassured Members that, although CIL had been charged since January 2019, there was a significant lead-in period and an instalment policy which meant that money was not yet being collected from liable developments.  Notwithstanding this, she stressed that it was an absolute priority to put the governance arrangements in place and she confirmed that this would require an Executive Committee decision.  A Member sought assurance that it was clear and understandable to developers when CIL had to be paid and the Head of Development Services confirmed that the CIL cost was established based on floor space, use etc. and there was a legal document setting out the payment dates and the amounts due.  The information was stored on a new software system and was completely transparent.  She clarified that there was a 5% administration fee and Parish Councils were entitled to 15% or 25% depending on whether a Neighbourhood Development Plan was in place – in most cases that proportion would go directly to the Parish Council; this left 70% or 80% in the strategic pot and a decision was required as to the recipient which would be set out in the governance.  Whist this was obvious in many cases, it could be unclear where certain infrastructure was required for developments to come forward.  She indicated that projections could be produced for Members, if required, to give them an indication of the CIL that Parishes could expect to receive and the potential ways this might need to be spent. 

52.5           With regard to Page No. 48, Action H.1 – Discuss tourism role with Members and partners – a Member noted that the first paragraph in the progress to date column talked about uncertainty over funding but this seemed to be contradicted by the last sentence which stated that a plan would be presented to Members setting out an enhanced tourism role.  The Head of Development Services advised that there had been a vacant post within the Economic Development and Tourism team for some time and, whilst she was keen to fill the post, it was firstly necessary to make some decisions about how best to manage the service, for instance, the Local Industrial Strategy which had been prevalent in April 2018 talked about the role of the technology industry and it was important to capitalise on every opportunity to facilitate tourism, not only in terms of the Tourist Information Centres, but also through supporting businesses with their tourism role.

52.6           A Member raised concern that, as a new Councillor, it was unclear from the report what improvements had been made as a result of the action plan and she would have welcomed a summary to highlight what had changed for the better and areas for further improvement.  The Head of Development Services felt this was a very good point and she advised that responses were currently awaited from a survey of applicants focused on their experience of the planning application process and the pre-application planning advice service.  Another Member drew attention to Page No. 37, Paragraph 3.7 of the report which talked about a number of small scale proposals to improve service delivery, manage costs and improve capacity but there were no details as to what those were and what outcomes had been achieved.  The Head of Development Services explained that this report focused on the delivery of the action plan, nevertheless, there were a number of actions currently being considered which had not been possible in 2018, for instance, increased use of digital technology to improve case management and efficiency including trialling paperless householder applications; whilst these projects were progressing, some would require investment in terms of Officer time and/or capital. 

52.7           A Member raised concern about two specific incidents, one whereby he had been unable to contact a particular Officer despite many calls to various other Council staff, and another which had been highlighted at a Parish Council meeting where an individual had been trying to obtain pre-application advice but their emails and calls had not been followed up.  This was clearly not an acceptable way to deal with customers and it meant that it was difficult to see the improvements that were suggested in the report.  The Head of Development Services understood these concerns and indicated that she was unaware of the problem at the Parish Council so she would be happy to discuss this further outside of the meeting.  Another Member indicated that he understood this had actually been resolved efficiently following the Parish Council meeting once the relevant Officer was made aware of this issue.  In terms of Officers not answering telephones, the Head of Development Services was disappointed to hear that this was an issue and reiterated her commitment to addressing the problem.  She had heard comments about people not being able to get hold of Officers who worked part-time etc. but she stressed that if Officers were away from their desks – whether that was because they were on site, in meetings or because they did not work full-time – it was always possible to contact Technical Administration; the telephone number for that department was on the website and in the Shoretel directory but she undertook to circulate a list of key contact numbers to all Members following the meeting.  It was worth noting that she had recently become aware of some technical issues with the telephones; whilst they allowed for three stacked calls, the two people behind the first caller did not realise they were in a queue as they just heard a ring tone which made it appear their calls were being ignored.  This was not appropriate and she was working with the IT team to come up with a solution.  The Chair felt that these types of concerns did not necessarily need to be resolved by the Head of Development Services as she clearly had a lot of other important work to do and he queried who else Members could contact.  The Head of Development Services indicated that she was more than happy to take concerns from Members and she would always respond to calls and emails, although that may not be straight away.  She was supported by the Technical Planning Manager and the Business Transformation Manager, as well as individual Case Officers, all of whom would be willing to assist Members.  A Member noted that both of the Managers mentioned were shared with Gloucester City Council and questioned whether they responded to calls from Tewkesbury Borough Council Officers and Members whilst working there.  The Head of Development Services clarified that the Officers split their time roughly 50/50 between the two authorities.  Whilst they should answer their calls and emails for both authorities, there was a lack of integration between the systems which meant that they had two inboxes to manage; this had been flagged as a concern and Officers were attempting to resolve it.

52.8           It was noted that it was not proposed to bring back a further report on the delivery of the action plan unless the outstanding actions failed to be completed by March 2020; however, given the concerns that had been raised regarding customer service, a Member felt it was important for the Committee to receive an update on the outcome of the customer satisfaction survey.  It was subsequently

RESOLVED          1. That the progress made against the actions contained within the Development Services Improvement Plan be NOTED.

2. That a further report be brought to the Committee in April/May 2020 to advise Members of the outcomes of the customer satisfaction survey and, if relevant, to give an explanation on any outstanding actions within the Plan.

Supporting documents: