Agenda item

4.1       The Committee received a report which provided an update on the      performance of the Town Planning Service in terms of the timeliness and      quality of its planning application decision making and the success rate of         planning appeals. The performance of the department over the period        between April 2021 and March 2022 continues to exceed the required             performance thresholds set by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and             Communities (DLUHC).

4.2       Members were advised that the Council was one of the largest planning authorities in the country and this status added unique pressures in relation with dealing with the volume of applications and ensuring that they are dealt with speedily, whilst ensuring that the quality of decision making is maintained. The volume of planning applications was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic; however, these numbers have begun to increase and this trend will be monitored. The Committee were reminded that introduction of Pavement Licences and greater permitted development rights during the pandemic have contributed to a small proportion of the overall reduction in application numbers. Members were informed that, in addition to applications, officers also provided pre-application advice to members of the public, businesses, and developers to enhance application success rates and ensure development proposals are consistent with the development plan.

4.3       For major applications, the DLUHC sets a threshold of at least 60% of all decisions being made within 13 weeks or within an alternative timeframe agreed with the applicant. For non-major development, the DLUHC threshold is 70%. For 2021/22 the Council exceeded the DLUHC performance thresholds for major applications by 28.5% and by 7.7% for non-major applications.

4.4       The DLUHC measures the quality of decision making by Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) by monitoring their success rate at appeal. For both major and non-major development, the DLUHC sets a threshold of not more than 10% of the total number of decisions made by an LPA being subsequently overturned at appeal. The Council continues to operate significantly below these figures for major and non-major development. Whilst there was a fluctuation in the yearly statistics, this is a result of appeals being determined by the Planning Inspectorate rather than the Council. It was noted there was an increase in the number of advertisement appeals allowed. Members were advised that there have been no significant trends that have emerged as a result of the new policies within the City Plan 2019-2040, which was adopted in April 2021.

4.5       Members held a discussion and noted the following: -

·       That there was one major application which had been appealed since September 2020. To date there have been no other appeals lodged regarding major scale developments. Members were advised that major applications and large schemes were normally widely consulted on and that developers were more likely to amend applications of this scale to overcome possible grounds for refusal. Members were advised that data on appeals were available on the Council’s Website and were in the process of being updated so that they are fully up to date.

·       Members noted that the former Paddington Green Police Station application had been subject to a ‘Call In’ by the Mayor of London and a hearing was scheduled for autumn 2022. There have been ongoing discussions regarding amending the scheme. The appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse permission for the redevelopment of Leconfield House is due to be determined by the Planning Inspectorate in the forthcoming months.

·       Members were informed that statistics regarding the volume of applications received for ‘Other’ applications listed in Table 1 of the report included applications such as advertisement consents, listed building consents and approval of details applications. The Committee noted that applications for listed building consent could sometimes be complex.

·       Members commented on Table 7 of the report which provided data on the speed of major application decisions of Inner London LPAs and noted that Westminster was at the lower end of the spectrum. Members were informed that a number of the other local planning authorities listed used tools such as extensions of time (EOTs) and planning performance agreements (PPAs) to a greater extent than Westminster and these agreements with the applicant allow LPAs to legitimately remove applications from the statutory 8- and 13-week timeframes set by the DLUHC. Officers noted that whilst EOTs and PPAs allow a greater number of applications to be determined within an agreed timeframe, it does not necessarily equate to decision making being quicker than when decisions that are made outside of the statutory timeframes without an EOT or PPA in place.

·       Members were informed that the service has increased its use of EOTs during 2021/22. EOTs enable a bespoke timetable to be agreed between the applicant and the planning service. The increased use of EOTs, along with other measures, has enabled the planning service to improve its speed of decision making in year during 2021/22, resulting in more favourable comparison with other Inner LPAs than in previous years. Members agreed that when reporting on performance in future, it would be helpful for further information to be provided regarding the use of EOTs, such as the length of extensions of time that had been agreed between the parties.

·       Members noted that since April 2022, the Service has provided a discounted pre-application advice fee for advice to householders on energy efficiency and sustainability improvements. Members asked that statistics should be provided in future years on how many pre-application advice requests of this nature had been received.

·       Members agreed that it would like to receive more frequent update reports identifying the performance of the Town Planning Service in terms of the timeliness and quality of its planning application decision making and the success rate of planning appeals.

·       Members were advised that the cost of appeals would be reported to future Committees and that the Council, like most planning departments, has a contingency budget for legal costs.

RESOLVED:

1.     Members considered the contents of the report and noted the ongoing overall good performance of the Town Planning service in terms of its determination of planning applications in a timely manner and defending decisions to refuse permission at appeal.

2.     That the Committee receive more frequent update reports which provide an in-year performance update for the Town Planning service in terms of the timeliness and quality of its planning application decision making and the success rate of planning appeals. The report should include statistics on the use of EOTs and the timeframes agreed with applicants and also the cost of appeals.