Agenda item

A presentation on the Planning Policy service plan was given by the manager. The service was responsible for the production of the Local Development Framework (LDF), the provision of advice for development control officers, responding to consultation documents, data collection and upholding the conservation policy. The planning policy team was fully staffed.

The primary aim of the Planning Policy service was to meet statutory requirements to prepare a Local Development Framework. In April 2006, the Statement of Community Involvement was the first document to be adopted. Consultation on the Core Strategy and Site Allocations was undertaken during the summer of 2006. Background studies to form a robust evidence base for the documents were almost complete. Two conservation area appraisals had been delivered.

Achievements of the service in 2006 included: the submission of all national and regional monitoring returns; improvements to I.T. software and its infrastructure; increased delivery of affordable housing in partnership with other services and a successful Growth Point bid for Grantham.

The budget for 2006/07 was significantly higher than the total actual spend for 2005/06. The actual spend recorded to the end of September appeared under budget. This was attributed to anomalies in the employee budget; it was not clear from which budgets funding for some staff had been drawn. There was a need to clarify on what areas the Planning Delivery Grant had been spent.

The service was moved from Category B to Category M, however, it played a key role in delivering two Category A outcomes: affordable housing and town centre regeneration. A large number of service obligations were laid down in the Local Development Scheme – a three year project plan for the production of the LDF, which made it simpler to plan expenditure.

A reduction in employee costs beyond 2006/07 was anticipated because of the loss of half a service manager, planning officer and reduced hours for a senior planning officer. There would be a reduction in budget for consultants’ fees because the majority of budgets would have been delivered by the end of 2006/07. There was the need to increase the budget for hearings and inspectors’ fees.

Gershon savings had been achieved through significant reduction in employee costs; the purchase of IT software which increased efficiency; the partial recoup of consultants’ fees through the charging structure for reports and background studies and disinvestment in historic building grants.

The SWOT analysis identified service strengths as: a good knowledge base in a settled team with opportunities presented by the LDF. That the LDF system was new was identified as a weakness. Other weaknesses included the ability to recruit qualified staff and a lack of resources for heritage and urban design. Opportunities would be provided through partnership working and the ability to set realistic targets through the Local Development Scheme. Threats identified were the management of the impact of restructure, the flexible nature of the planning delivery grant and further changes to the national planning system.

Additional resources could be required following the monitoring of effects from the restructure. To improve the service’s BVPI performance on conservation area appraisals, further resources could be required. Additional finance would have to be available for LDF examinations and inspectors’ fees.

Following the presentation, members of the panel discussed the issues raised:

• Where possible, studies were done in conjunction with other local authority areas, however, most required area specific information.
• Without funding in place for appeals and inspectors’ fees, the Council would be unable to get the LDF signed-off.
• Reduction in the level of funding for conservation projects caused concern.
• The robust evidence necessary for the compilation and sign-off of the LDF would consist of empirical evidence based on statistics, social and economic data and anecdotal evidence.
• The service had undertaken a cautious approach to the production of LDF documents, since the first two authorities to undergo inspection were deemed unsound.

Issues to note for Gateway 2:

• Whether additional resources would be necessary to improve the number of conservation area appraisals undertaken in a year.

CONCLUSION:

That the Service Manager, Planning Policy should look into anomalies between the budgeted spend for employees and the actual spend for employees for 2006/07.