F I F E C O U N C I L
Policy & Resources Committee
30th November 2006
Agenda Item No.
REVISION TO DELEGATED POWERS GRANTED TO HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PROPOSED PILOT
1.0PURPOSE
1.1To discuss the implications of new planning legislation relating to development management and the improved delegation of planning decisions and to recommend consequent changes to the current Fife Council Scheme of Delegation.
1.2 The current approach to delegation is considered to be inefficient in terms of officer time and committee time. Some key statistics are provided later which confirm the number of minor reports currently going to Committee and the high number of applications which are not discussed. A re-balancing between officer and committee decision making in proportion to the complexity and scale of the application will help to provide appropriate focus and an enhanced role for the Committees.
1.3The Planning Bill currently advancing through the Scottish Parliament focuses on this aspect and it is covered in more detail later in the paper. Nevertheless all Councils are expected to review their delegation schemes to achieve an approach consistent with the terms of the Bill as advanced and in the subsequent Planning Act and related legislation/procedures. This will, currently, include a power given to officers to refuse certain categories of planning applications.
1.4To propose a pilot period operation of an enhanced scheme of delegation, to test such an approach for strengths, weaknesses, benefits or drawbacks in the run up to May 2007.
2.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
2.1 There are not likely to be any additional direct financial costs linked to delegation levels indeed there should be direct and indirect savings in staff time, committee time, photocopying and administrative costs.
2.2Careful consideration will be required on the impact of improvements and new measures introduced by the forthcoming Planning Bill (Act) for service delivery, committee operation and resource levels once known.
2.3Joint work between the Scottish Executive, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland (RTPI) and the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning (SSDP) in the form of a Planning Finance Working Party is currently considering in more detail the Financial Memorandum accompanying the Bill and related resource issues – staffing levels, retention and recruitment, training, planning fees, assessments of possible additional cost (e.g. neighbour notification).
3.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1Any formal changes as a direct consequence of the Planning Bill (Act) will require to be reported to the appropriate committees of the Council and further adjustments and revisions made if necessary.
4.0 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
4.1Currently the following applications require to be referred to the Area Development Committees and are not delegated to the Head of Development Services:
- Applications which are recommended for refusal, regardless of whether it is a policy refusal in line with the provisions of the development plan i.e. a refusal of a proposal which is not in accord with agreed Fife Council policy, or a minor application.
- Applications which attract any relevant objections. This requires a large number of minor and single objection applications to be automatically referred to committee where the issues raised are straightforward in planning assessment terms. Objections which were not relevant to planning e.g. legal/ownership issues, value of property etc are not accepted as valid planning objections.
- Applications which are a departure to the Development Plan. Again this referral category does not distinguish between major and minor departures.
4.2There are a variety of factors which require the council to re-assess the current levels of delegated planning decisions to the Head of Development Services. In summary these are:
i)Current Experiences
Monitoring of the Committees performance over the last few years provides the following key average statistics:
- Committee determines 25% of all applications submitted in Fife (1 in 4) – giving Fife an average delegated rate of 75%
- 25% of Committee applications are minor householder applications.
- 90% of officer recommendations are granted by committee without changes.
- 58% of applications generate no discussion at committee.
- 50% of the applications referred to committee because of objections have been lodged attract 5 objectors or less.
In 2003/2004 the average delegation rate in Scotland was 80% with the highest being 96% (Falkirk).
ii)Additional Workloads
Historically there has been an increase in the number of applications submitted for determination but the Development Promotion and Design Team in particular is also experiencing a rapid rise in the number and complexity of letters requesting information, clarification, updates and explanations of development applications. This increase arises across all third parties e.g. Councillors, agents, MP’s, MSP’s, applicants, developers, objectors and others. Other increasing areas of workload included formal and informal complaints and requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. These work areas are important and also by their nature have to be given priority over other workstreams.
iii)Performance Targets
The national performance targets set by the Scottish Executive are currently not being met for a variety of reasons including vacant posts, staff absences, training of new staff, but a large and increasing area of work for all planners is the time taken to service the 3 Area Development Committees, prepare Committee Reports and all the related follow up work. It is not possible to sustain the level of preparation, action and follow up taken together with the other increases in overall workload without the risk of lower performance and quality.
iv)New Planning Bill
A variety of discussions/consultation papers have been published in the last few years under the general theme of modernising the planning system in Scotland. This work is captured in the new Planning Bill which has progressed through the Scottish Parliament. Specifically in relation to development management activities there are proposed changes to be introduced, including:
- A new hierarchy of planning applications (National, Major, Minor) (See Appendix 1)
- Neighbour notification being undertaken by Councils not applicants
- Good neighbour agreements
- Detailed pre-submission processes
- Revised appeal mechanisms including local ‘internal’ appeals to the Council
- New limits for what constitutes ‘permitted development’ i.e. does not require planning permission
- Effective delegation schemes to increase business processes, decision making and performance levels
- Contract agreements in timescales for determining different application types.
Holiday Powers
4.3During the holiday recess planning applications are determined by the Head of Development Services, in consultation with the relevant Area Chair, or other nominee, under emergency powers granted to the Chief Executive. These delegated decisions are also reported formally to the Area Development Committees for information.
4.4This temporary delegation includes:
- Applications for refusal
- Applications attracting up to 5 objections
4.5The scheme works well and enables applications to be determined efficiently without waiting through the summer for the next available Committee. The process is simple and straightforward and does not consume staff time and resources in the same way as a formal Committee. Within the scheme the available options are:
- Determine the applications with no changes from the recommendation
- Determine the application with additions
- Consult the Local Member before determination
- Refer the application to the next Committee
The role of the Chair in this expedited process is important to ensure political input and a degree of scrutiny, in the decision making process.
Enforcement Action
4.6The current Scheme of Delegation enables the Head of Development Services to serve:
- Planning Contravention Notice
- Breach of Conditions Notice
- Discontinuance Notice
- Refusal of Unauthorised Adverts.
4.7In cases of urgency the Head of Service can serve an Enforcement Notice, Stop Notice or Tree Preservation Order.
4.8 By definition the serving of a Stop Notice (which must follow on from Enforcement Notice) and a Tree Preservation Order are always matters of urgency and it would therefore be simpler and quicker to include those categories in the proposed delegation pilot scheme to the Head of Development Services.
5.0PROPOSALS
5.1The proposed adjustments set out in Appendix 2 will bring Fife Council in to line with the majority of other Scottish Planning Authorities.
5.2The opportunity to determine straightforward policy refusals (e.g. shopfronts, adverts, windows, dormers) will be especially beneficial and will unclutter the Committee agendas and Committee time without any reduction in quality of decision or level of scrutiny.
5.3Currently up to 50% of Committee business can be generated by simple, straightforward applications attracting single neighbour objections or a small number of local objections. Very often these objections are neighbour disputes or simple objections relating to size, design or local impact.
5.4The proposals for improved delegation, taken together with other initiatives including a business process review, new staffing resources and the introduction of E-Planning, would be likely to raise the rate of delegation to 90% of applications and will increase the Council’s performance levels. An average of 4000 applications are determined each year and this would mean approximately 400 applications being determined by Committee.
5.5The benefits to Committee will be:
- More focussed, strategic agendas
- Real opportunities for detailed discussion and debate
- Comprehensive assessment and discussion of significant proposals
- Reduction/removal of minor single issue items
- Shorter Committee times will be possible.
We are also looking at the way in which information, including maps and drawings, are presented to Committee using new technology.
5.6The benefits to stakeholders will be:
-swifter decision making on applications
-more officer time available for pre-application discussions
-more officer time across services, for dealing with wider stakeholder approaches and matters
-more focus on resolving issues within planning applications
5.7The benefits to staff will include:
- Less time for Committee preparation and report writing, checking, editing
- Removal of the 4 weekly priority deadline
- Shorter, focussed reports which can be advanced locally
- Improved performance levels and better opportunities for workload
management
- Improved morale.
5.8At a time of increasing interest, scrutiny and transparency in the planning system it will be important to demonstrate quality, professional assessments are being carried out under delegated powers. New and improved internal management measures will be introduced including:
- Hierarchy of signing, including the Head of Service and Development Manager
- Restrictions on the use of delegated powers imposed relative to levels of experience and
professional qualifications of staff
- Agreed standard reports and audit sheets
- Sample checks on quality and completions
- Monitoring report to Committee on delegated decisions taken and any relevant
feedback.
-Delegated matters within a particular ward to be communicated to local ward member
-Approval in conjunction with the Area Development Committee Chair applications proposed now brought in to the proposed delegation scheme for the pilot period.
-Any applications involving objections to be signed off by Development Manager or Head of Service for the pilot period
5.9The move in May 2007 to multi-member ward is being taken as an opportunity to review communication with members on participation in the processes for planning applications. The Service is currently looking at moving to ward lists, which should help members manage and focus on matters relevant to their area of responsibility.
5.10Of particular assistance in this initiative are the outputs and outcomes arising from the current Business Process Review of planning application processes. The review has been ongoing from April 2006 to date and has included a “Kaizen Blitz” initiative, whereby a team of officers drawn from across the 3 hub offices within the Service have come together to review processes, identify weaknesses, capture opportunities for more consistent working across the hub offices and remove historical anomalies and practices from individual hub offices dating back some considerable period of time.
6.0CONCLUSIONS
6.1Changes to the current scheme of delegation are required in order to:
- Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Area Development Committees by concentrating on the major, strategic applications which have the greatest impact on Fife and its communities.
- Respond to the initiatives being considered in the Planning Bill through a Pilot approach, and subsequently comply with the Planning Act provisions.
- Improve the Council’s performance levels by introducing quicker decision making processes by officers for more straightforward categories of applications.
- Recognise and respond to the changing mix/balance of workload for this activity area.
- Test officer and Member capacity, systems and communications for this way of working through a pilot.
- Deliver standards of service and customer care now expected by our key stakeholder groups.
7.0RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1It is recommended to the Council that:
- The current Scheme of Delegation to the Head of Development Services be replaced with a revised Pilot scheme set out in this report and summarised in Appendix 2.
- Changes to the enforcement delegations to the Head of Development Services be agreed as per the report.
- This new pilot period Scheme of Delegation be operated from 1st January 2007 to 30th April 2007.
-The Head of Development Service will report on the issues and performance of this pilot system of delegation into the first available P & R Committee after the 30th April 2007.
-The additional types of planning application moved for delegation approval within the proposed new framework will be agreed with the local elected ward member and the Area Development Committee Chairperson.
- A small elected member group will be formed, drawn across political groups, to work alongside officers as the assessment proceeds with this pilot initiative.
Keith Winter
Head of Development Services
Fife House
North Street
Glenrothes
Author: Jim Birrell, Development and Regeneration Manager
Date: 20th November, 2006
Ref:
APPENDIX 2
PROPOSED SCHEME OF DELEGATION
AAll development applications (see C below) can be determined for approval or refusal by the Head of Development Services with the exception of:
1. Applications defined as national development and major, strategic applications (see Appendix 1 for definitions).
2. Applications attracting more than 5 separate, individual objections (i.e. this excludes 5 letters of objection from a single person/organisation).
3.Applications which are significant departures to the Development Plan recommended for approval.
- Applications which are submitted by Members of staff in Development Services, Fife Councillors and Senior Fife Council staff.
- Applications attracting objections Statutory Consultees.
BFor the avoidance of doubt, development applications for determination by the Head of Development Services will include:
A. Applications for refusal which are contrary to the Development Plan
B. Applications attracting up to 5 individual objections, including Fife Council Services, but
NOT including
- Statutory Consultees (including Community Councils)
C. Applications for Notice of Intention to Develop
- Applications requiring a Section 75 Agreement (non financial) or Section 96 Agreement.
E. Applications which are deficient in information or detail to enable a proper assessment
to be completed.
F. Applications which are not progressing satisfactorily due to protracted delays by the
Applicant/agent.
C Development applications include all categories of applications submitted to Fife Council Planning Authority for determination
APPENDIX 1
POSSIBLE HIERACHY OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
1. / National Developments (Scottish Ministers/Scottish Executive Committee)National, Strategic importance
(e.g. Infrastructure Investment Plan, National Transport Strategy, Strategic Projects Review)
2. / Major Strategic Developments (Area Development Committee and / or Environment and Development Committee)
Large scale developments, not of national importance
(e.g. shopping centre, business park, large-scale housing)
Categories to be confirmed in secondary legislation but it is suggested that Fife Council initially use the following categories,
- Significant Departures to the Development Plan
- Significant number of relevant objections (5+)
- Applications requiring Environmental Assessment, Transport Assessment and Retail Impact Assessments
- Large scale ‘bad neighbour developments’ e.g. refuse tip, quarry
- Mineral applications
- Applications requiring referral/notification to the Scottish Ministers.
- Windfarms and Golf Courses.
Right to call in, appeal and judicial review
Decisions at the local level – Committee (not delegated)
3. / Local Developments (Officer Decisions)
The vast majority of existing applications including smaller housing developments, commercial developments, changes of use.
4. / Minor Developments (Officer Decisions)
Small scale, minor developments including extensions to houses, householder developments
1
F:\P&R Pre-agendas\P&R 30 November, 2006\Item 11 Revision of Delegated Powers Granted to Head of Development Services proposed .doc