Agenda item

Russell Hughes-Pickering provided members with an update on the planning and enforcement caseloads. In December 2022, a report was presented to the Committee on the Development Management Service. The report centred on a 2021 Audit Wales review of the Planning Service in Ceredigion and set out 10 recommendations relating to governance arrangements and to improving service capacity. In response to those recommendations relating to governance arrangements, it was reported that significant changes to the Constitution had been agreed including new Terms of Reference, Operational Procedures, Codes of Practice and Delegated Powers. In response to performance issues, it was necessary to look at tackling issues in four main areas of the development management process – validation, consultee delays, phosphates and staff capacity to deal with cases. An update on the current position of the four main areas was provided.

A presentation was provided to the Committee outlining the following:

·       Introduction

·       Planning applications

-       Caseload- last 24 months

-       Number of cases determined

-       Speed of decision making

-       Current planning application caseload

-       Future targets

·       Planning enforcement

-       Enforcement cases- new by year

-       Breakdown of caseload

-       Outstanding enforcement cases

-       Future targets

·       Staff update

Members were provided with the opportunity to ask questions which were answered by Russell Hughes-Pickering. The main points raised were as follows:

·       The utilization of Capita which had several branches will end soon once the backlog had been dealt with and the department had the capacity to deal with cases. Despite Capita being slightly cheaper, there were benefits of employing internal staff such as familiarization with the area and policies.

·       The same decision-making process was used by internal staff and Capita.

·       Advertising the success of the enforcement team was suggested to highlight that action was taken where required. Enforcement issues and the response to this varied case by case, and the process was lengthy.

·       There was scope to look at how employees wished to work. With flexible hours. As there was an 8-week target to process cases in development management, it could be challenging to achieve this if working part-time. 

·       It was suggested that communication between officers and agencies could be improved. Given the workload of officers, there were time constraints but there was an aspiration to improve communication and the quality of applications.

·       There were no issues between the local authority and CADW, however, decisions could take time. This was partly due to the local authority no longer having a speciality heritage officer but following the appointment of a Specialist Development Management Officer, this would hopefully improve, and delegated powers would be given.

·       When the Council’s Constitution changed, it was agreed that Members would be informed by e-mail when an application in their ward was received, which enabled them to be involved from the onset. The onus was on Members to keep updated with each application. Members and officers were encouraged to discuss cases, particularly if the application was controversial to ensure all were aware of the situation.

Following questions by the Committee Members, it was agreed to note the report.