Agenda item

For the Sub-Committee to scrutinise the Cabinet report covering the draft Planning Transformation Programme structure, including the programme’s six workstreams, future governance and next steps. To receive a presentation on the above, the findings of the PAS review and the Council’s responses to its recommendations, to allow the Sub-Committee to feed into, and influence, the Transformation Programme.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 29 to 120 of the agenda, which provided the Cabinet report on Local Planning Authority Service Transformation. The Corporate Director of Sustainable Communities, Regeneration and Economic Recovery (SCRER) introduced the item and went through the presentation, appended to these minutes, on the report that covered the findings of the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) review (Appendix 1 of the Cabinet report) and the Council’s response to its recommendations.

The Chair asked how the workstreams would be managed and prioritised. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained this was still in its very early stages, but that there would be a project plan for each workstream. Members heard that the appointment of the Planning Improvement Manager was key and would following building capacity for transformation into the service. Once the Planning Improvement Manager was in post, the workstreams, project plans and programme would be established; as part of this, how to monitor and report on progress would be considered. The Chair asked if every recommendation from the PAS review would be addressed, and the Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the review was a snapshot of the service and that the recommendations would need to be prioritised, with most of them directly addressed.

The Vice-Chair queried the Planning Department’s current strategy and asked how resources would be prioritised over the coming months. The Chair enquired how the tensions between the budget, delivery of services and transformation would be managed. The Corporate Director of SCRER responded that there had been reductions in the number of staff and shortfalls in income generated by planning applications, which had made it difficult to resource the service and address capacity issues. There had been a budget correction of £1 million in recognition that income targets had been less than what had been achieved. Members heard that there was a continuing risk of reduced income from a downturn in planning applications.

Members asked what checks and balances were being put in place to ensure the department remained resilient. The Corporate Director of SCRER highlighted the importance of correctly resourcing the department, and noted the particular pressures that had been felt during the pandemic. Members heard that improvements to efficiencies, processes and IT were important to make workloads more manageable for staff. The Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration explained that the PAS review, Mayor’s Business Plan and National Policy changes would all be used to inform transformation plans. The Cabinet Member highlighted the strong governance structures in place for the programme and importance of workforce development in ensuring it was a success.

The Vice-Chair asked how different the service was now in comparison to when the PAS review was conducted, and the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration explained that the department was on an improvement journey, and was making good progress. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that recruitment to planning roles was a national challenge, particularly in London, and that work to clear the backlog of planning applications was ongoing, but that progress was being made. The Chair asked how well the backlog was being managed, and the Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that headway had been made in reducing the backlog from roughly 1800 to below 1000 over the last 12 months. Members heard that around 800 live applications was thought to be a manageable amount. The backlog had been reviewed to ascertain the age of applications and it had been found around 2/3 were ‘out of time’, with around 1/3 ‘in time’; the Sub-Committee heard that the aspiration was to flip these ratios. Clearance weeks were taking place roughly once a month to help reduce the backlog, and recently had also been used to also review the ‘out of time’ applications to analyse why these had not yet been determined. Members heard this had been successful in making progress for these older applications and that learning from each clearance week was taken forward to improve processes. The Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration highlighted the digitalisation workstream and explained that it was hoped this would further help with prioritising applications for determination in future.

The Sub-Committee asked about references to ‘Vexatious Complainants’ and the Corporate Director of SCRER explained that this report had been written by an independent panel and the term had been used to refer to persistent complaints that had been thought to be unfounded upon investigation. The Chair noted that the service was struggling to respond to complaints in a timely manner, and asked about the possible risks of this. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that response times had improved, but that some complaints were complex, and required detailed responses which could take time to fully investigate; it was highlighted that responding to complaints also needed to be carefully balanced with determining applications. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration added that complaints could be complicated and entangled with enforcement issues, which could draw out the length of time it took to respond.

The Chair asked about Resident Engagement meetings and heard that these were held twice a year, however, were not a statutory requirement; Members heard a Developer Forum was also held twice a year. Resident Engagement meetings were in person, as it was felt this assisted in breaking down barriers, but it was acknowledged that hybrid meetings could be easier for some residents for a variety of reasons. The Sub-Committee heard that the Director for Planning & Sustainable Regeneration was working with the Cabinet Member and Mayor about how these meetings would look going forward. The Chair highlighted the accessibility needs of some residents that could be better met through a hybrid provision. The Sub-Committee asked the Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration to ensure Ward Councillors were invited to Resident Engagement meetings going forward.

The Vice-Chair asked about the review of houses in multiple occupation (HMO) policies. The Corporate Director of SCRER responded that the HMO policy could be provided in writing outside of the meeting, and explained that there was a difference between planning policy, how planners looked at conversions to HMOs and the conditions inside of HMOs. The Local Plan Review would look at the cumulative impact of the proliferation of HMOs in the borough, but the private-sector Housing department were responsible for looking at the conditions inside of HMOs.

The Vice-Chair highlighted the loss of retail units on highstreets where conversions to HMOs took place. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that there had not been a great deal of this kind of Permitted Development in Croydon Town Centre, but acknowledged that this was a concern for District Centres. An Article 4 had been considered for Croydon, but Members heard that the Government had set the bar for this at such a high level that it was thought not to be achievable; an Article 4 also required sign off from the Secretary of State. The Sub-Committee heard that other London authorities had applied for Article 4s and that these had been curtailed dramatically or rejected entirely.The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration stated that they would keep an eye on this area, but that in their opinion applying for an Article 4 was not a wise use of resources at this time. The Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration explained that there were a large number of properties in the borough that had been converted to HMOs without permission that were only just being discovered, and that the Council was becoming stricter on its granting of HMO Licences, and engaging in greater levels of enforcement activity. 

The Chair invited Councillor Ben-Hassel to ask a question regarding a previous Article 4 impacting houses with more than three bedrooms and whether this would be revoked.The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the scope and timeline for the Review of the Local Plan would be brought to the next Cabinet Meeting; the review would look at the impacts and successes of existing policy and how these could be built on to meet objectives around HMOs. On whether HMO Licensing fees would be increased, the Sub-Committee heard that these had not been increased this year.

The Chair asked how housing targets would be met in light of the proposed removal of intensification areas. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that the small site development target of 641 units per year would be retained; intensification would still occur, despite the areas being removed, but the approach would shift to focus on character over density. Housing targets were on track to be met, and the Five Year Housing Land Supply had been met for the last year.

The Chair asked if there was sufficient resource had been allocated to tackle the six workstreams in the transformation programme. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that greater capacity was always desirable, but that funding had been allocated to the programme and was currently sufficient. Members heard that some aspects of the programme, particularly digitalisation, might require more funding than had currently been allocated; if there was a business case to do so, it may be the case that transformation funding from other areas could be redirected to the Planning transformation programme. In response to questions on how the Review of the Local Plan would be funded, the Sub-Committee heard that an earmarked reserve for this was built into the budget.

The Chair asked what options were being considered in the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) review. Members heard that the review would look at the collection of monies rather than allocation, ensuring processes and systems were correct, and that training and oversight for staff was in place. The Chair asked if officers were confident that the CIL funding formula was correct, and the Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that this had been correct at the time it was set up, and broadly worked, but that there were improvements that could be made. Correct and timely collection of CIL was highlighted as an important income stream.

The Chair asked about the absence of enforcement in the Head of Development job description, and Members heard that a Deputy Head of service role had been deleted since the job description was written, and replaced with a ‘Team Leader of Enforcement’ which had been found to be insufficient. This was being reviewed as part of the transformation programme to ensure there was sufficient senior capacity and oversight for enforcement. The Sub-Committee queried the unfunded role in paragraph 2.11, on page 58 of the agenda pack; the Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained this would be funded by CIL administration monies and Pre-Application Advice fees.

Members asked about the deployment of temporary staff to address the enforcement backlog. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that temporary staff in enforcement only covered for vacant positions, and highlighted the national difficulties in recruiting to enforcement posts. Members heard that there was ongoing work to revise the job description for the ‘Deputy Team Leader’ post to turn this into a ‘Team Leader’ post, so that a permanent staff member could be recruited. Recruitment had been ongoing, with a permanent member of staff due to fill the last open vacancy soon. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that agency staff were helping to manage current caseloads and reduce the backlog by participating in clearance weeks, and closing down cases where possible. The Corporate Director of SCRER highlighted the busy nature of planning in Croydon, and the importance of ensuring enforcement officers prioritised cases. In response to questions about the size of the enforcement department, the Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the service was small for the size of the borough.The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration highlighted the importance of providing development opportunities for enforcement staff going forward.

The Vice-Chair asked about the planned actions for Q1 2023/24 under ‘Review the Resourcing of the Planning Service’ on page 107 of the agenda, and raised concerns that these had not yet commenced. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the backlog had already been reduced without additional resource. Members heard that the Planning Improvement Manager would be looking at programme management, workstreams and ensuring that progress was taking place; budget for this had already been approved and the recruitment process had begun. The budget correction that had taken place did not provide additional resource to the service, and it was acknowledged that it would be a challenge for the department to deliver transformation with the small amount of transformation funding and existing resources it had. The Chair asked if this was reasonable and whether transformation could be delivered within current resource. The Corporate Director of SCRER responded that greater capacity and resourcing was desirable, but that a great deal was possible with the existing resources of the department. Members heard that the Government was consulting on planning fees, which could potentially increase the resources available should these increase. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that better IT implementation and efficiencies would speed up determinations and increase officer productivity. The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration highlighted a number of quick wins in digitalisation that were attainable for the service.

The Chair highlighted the importance of staff welfare and Members asked how frequently staff were working overtime, and whether they were compensated or given time in lieu. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that a great number of staff worked beyond their contracted hours, and that it was important to set boundaries to ensure staff were not overburdening themselves; staff were provided compensation or time in lieu as appropriate for overtime. The Chair asked about staff turnover, and heard that this had been higher over the last couple of years, but that there were many staff members who had been in Croydon for significant periods of time, and staff who had left and come back. The PAS review had acknowledged comradery between officers in the department, and the Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration acknowledged the importance of developing officers and providing a compelling offer to keep staff in Croydon; Members heard that this would be a focus of the transformation programme.

In response to a question from the Chair about the consistency of responses to applications, appeals and enquiries, the Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that consistency was ensured through strong processes that were in place to manage this, using a multi-disciplinary approach for complex applications. Further evidence for this was demonstrated by a strong track record with appeals.

The Chair asked about the implication of national policy changes for Croydon. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that national policy changes were always being considered by Government, and that the department kept abreast of proposed changes, making changes to respond to new policy where required. The Government were keen to encourage digitalisation, which formed a workstream in the transformation programme, but there were no large changes to national policy on the horizon.

The Chair asked about what lessons could be learned from other internal transformation projects, and from other planning authorities. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that PAS reports were useful resources in directing transformation programmes, and that focussing on workforce and digitalisation would be key in transforming the Planning service.

Conclusions

The Sub-Committee were of the view that the digitalisation and workforce workstreams would be key in ensuring that transformation of the Planning department was successful, and that the Sub-Committee should continue to monitor progress in these areas.

The Sub-Committee were keen to receive a briefing on the proposed CIL review, and were of the view that this should be an addition to the 2023/24 work programme.

The Sub-Committee concluded that they should be provided with a written copy of the Council’s HMO Policy.

Recommendations.

The Sub-Committee recommended that Councillors be invited to attend future Resident Engagement events.