EEC/06/88/HQ Development Control Committee 19 July 2006

Annual Report on Development Management, Monitoring and Enforcement Performance 2005/06

Report of the Director of Environment, Economy and Culture

Please note that the following recommendation is subject to consideration and determination by the Committee before taking effect.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Committee notes this review of the Council's Development Management, Monitoring and Enforcement performance in 2005/06 and endorses the amendments to the performance indicators and performance targets for future years as set out in Appendix II to this report.

1. Summary

This report provides an annual review of the key statistics relating to the performance of the Committee's planning and highways development management responsibilities during the past financial year.

2. Background

Pursuant to DoE Circular 18/84, the Committee receives, regular quarterly reports on the handling of "County Matter" and County Council Development planning applications. This report includes an aggregation and analysis of these statistics together with other key performance indicator data for the last year, with comparable data from previous years where available. (See Appendices I and II to this report).

The Committee's agreed "Policy and Good Practice Guide to the Monitoring and Enforcement of Planning Control" also requires that the Council's performance in this particular area of work should be reported annually to the Committee. This is addressed in Appendix II to this report.

Following previous approval by the Committee in July 2004 and the Procedures Committee in October 2004, the Council's Charter for Development Control was published last January. This also requires that the Committee keeps under review its Charter Standards. Since the adoption of this Charter, the County Council has itself corporately adopted Customer Service Standards and it will be necessary to revisit the Charter Standards at an early date to ensure consistency with the Corporate standards.

Monitoring of compliance with such Standards is undertaken through a variety of methods - such as telephone data and mail monitoring systems etc. The current introduction of the Datawright IT software relating specifically to the Development Management processes should enable enhanced monitoring data to be produced in future reports on customer service performance specifically related to the planning application processes.

3. Review of 2005/06

The past year has again proved a busy and eventful one with significant levels of development control casework progressed as well as important milestones being achieved with the Minerals and Waste Development Frameworks/Local Plans. Minerals and Waste Development Framework/Local Plans

The Minerals Local Plan was adopted in June 2004 and resources in 2005/06 have been concentrated on moving the Waste Local Plan towards its eventual adoption in June 2006. A redeposit version of the Waste Local Plan was published in July 2005, Pre Inquiry Changes and Omission Sites published in November 2005, and the Public Inquiry held in January-February 2006. The Inspector's binding report was eventually published in May 2006 enabling the Plan to be adopted in June 2006.

Alongside this work has commenced on the new Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework pursuant to the new Development Plan requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. A Minerals and Waste Development Scheme (MWDS) was adopted after discussion with GOSW in July 2005 which established key milestones to be achieved in the formulation and adoption of the new Minerals and Waste Development documents. A revision of the MWDS is currently under discussion with GOSW and is due to be formally adopted this month.

Key milestones achieved in 2005/06 included:

• Statement of Community Involvement - Initial consultation completed March 2005. • Publication of Annual Monitoring Report - December 2005.

Whilst responsibility for progressing the Mineral and Waste Development Framework now falls with the Council's Spatial Planning and Regional Affairs Committee, the Development Control Committee benefits from having an up to date framework of Minerals and Waste Development Plans in place - particularly in the context of delivering plan-led development control decisions.

Procedures and Performance Standards

In terms of its procedures and performance standards, the Committee continues to work within its adopted Protocol for Development Control (adopted in April 2003), the Policy and Good Practice Guide for the Monitoring and Enforcement of Planning Control (adopted in November 2001), the Protocol for Minor Amendments (adopted in November 2003), the Protocol for Section 106 Agreements (adopted in September 1999), and the Charter for Development Control (published in January 2005), together with targets established and monitored for Best Value and Local Performance Indicators since the Best Value Review was carried out into the Development Control Service in 2001. Together these represent a significant commitment to transparency of procedures and standards of service by the Council in the delivery of its Development Management functions.

Committee Meetings

The Committee met on eight occasions during the year and has conducted four full Committee and one limited Members' Site Visits. The Committee following the Council elections in May 2005, received an Induction Training Seminar in June 2005, and half day training seminars in November 2005 and March 2006 which addressed a spectrum of topics including the emerging Waste Local Plan, the lessons to be learnt from the Wonford Home Zone Project; the appropriate use of planning conditions; and lessons to be learnt from the Torr Quarry Local Government Ombudsman investigation. Members also undertook its Annual Tour in September 2005 which visited the integrated Waste Management facilities at Heathfield and the Watts Blake and Bearne Ball Clay Works in the Bovey Basin. An ongoing programme of training has been agreed for 2006/07. Casework

Casework numbers (see Appendix I to this report for details) across the service saw a reduction from the previous year but involved the determination and progression of some strategically important developments.

In particular, major applications were determined and planning permissions granted for the By Pass, the By Pass and the Monkerton Link Road in Exeter. Further sections of the Strategic Cycle Route Network in were progressed through the planning system - including key decisions at , Highampton and Whitchurch.

New first time Waste Water Treatment facilities were consented at , Woodbury Salterton and (Teignbridge), and a new Recycling Centre was granted planning permission at Caddsdown, , being the culmination of a long and often problematic quest for a replacement of the former Northam Burrows Civic Amenity and Recycling Centre. The Committee also again dealt with a number of on farm green waste compositing schemes, representing a much larger number of individual proposals which were dealt with under delegated arrangements.

The determination of planning applications, investigation of alleged breaches of planning control and monitoring issues at the former Torr Quarry Site near Kingsbridge resulted a lengthy Ombudsman investigation, which, whilst settled locally raised a number of questions in terms of the Council's processes and procedures which have now been addressed.

In terms of its role in giving Strategic Planning and Highways/Transportation advice, the Committee has made significant contributions to the ongoing detailed planning processes for the proposed Cranbrook (East Devon) and Sherford (South Hams) new communities where a new approach is being sought, in partnership with the District Councils and others to the delivery of sustainable communities and a new urbanism. In particular, the Committee considered and endorsed the County Council's corporate response to the Cranbrook planning application. Additionally the Committee responded to strategic consultations on major development proposals including the Jetty Marsh area of Newton Abbot, the Biomass Electricity Generating Station proposals, and Major Wind Farm proposals at Fullabrook (North Devon) and Denbrook (West Devon) all of which are likely to result in Public Inquiries in the coming year.

Since August 2005, the County Council has under an agreement assisted the South West Regional Assembly in providing advice to District Councils in Devon on the conformity of major planning applications with the Regional Spatial Strategy - the Regional Planning Body now being a statutory consultee on such application.

The Education Capital Building Programme, whilst perhaps not as intense as in the previous year has resulted in a significant number of proposals passing through the planning process including the extension/remodelling of schools at Shaldon and Uplowman which were considered by the Committee, as well as the implementation phase of the major Exeter Schools PFI project.

The Committee has continued to support the establishment and running of Local Liaison Groups in respect of most of the County's major minerals and waste management sites - and whilst these can be resource hungry in terms of member and staff time they are generally proving their worth in terms of effective community engagement and understanding of the planning processes at these sites. At present there are active Liaison Groups for:

Venn Quarry, Landkey (Minerals) Deep Moor Landfill, Near (Waste Management) Broadpath Landfill/Hillhead Quarry, Uffculme (Minerals and Waste Management) Westleigh Quarry, Burlescombe (Minerals) Trusham Quarry (Minerals) Sands/Babcombe Copse Quarries, (Minerals) Bovey Basin Ball Clay (Overall and Sub Groups for Imerys/WBB) - (Minerals) Heathfield Landfill, Kingsteignton (Waste Management) Stoneycombe Quarry (Minerals)/Cornwood China Clay (Minerals) and, new Groups for the complex of Waste Management facilities at Greendale Barton, Woodbury Salterton (East Devon) and Vyse Quarry (North Devon) are proposed to be established shortly.

Finally, the Committee received in 2005 a Commendation in the Royal Town Planning Institute in the schemes on the ground category for the effectiveness of its input in achieving the restoration and culm grassland enforcement of the Ash Moor, Foot and Mouth Carcass Disposal Site, at .

Best Value and Local Performance Measures

The Statutory Best Value and Local Performance Indicator returns are set out in Appendix II to this report. In analysing these returns and the details contained in Appendix I, it should be recognised that there is an inevitable volatility in some of these statistics because of the relatively small statistic samples being considered and the variation in complexity of individual applications from year to year. This should be borne in mind in drawing conclusions from any trends.

In 2005/06 there was a reduction of 30% in the number of "County Matter" (Minerals and Waste) planning applications compared with the previous year. In turnaround times BV109(a) shows a modest improvement with 56% of these applications being determined in 13 weeks as opposed to 54% in the previous year. Process improvements following the introduction of new IT software in July 2006 and more strict adherence to 21 day statutory consultation periods now being observed should enable attainment of the 60% national target this coming year.

In terms of County Council development planning applications there was a 12% decrease in the number of applications determined in 2005/6 compared with the previous year. In turnaround times there was continued improvement with 58% of applications being determined within the 8 week target period compared with 48% in the previous year. This still falls short of 75% target set, but shows encouraging progress in terms of direction of travel and it is hoped that the final step change can be achieved with the current rollout of new IT software.

2005/06 saw a modest 6.5% reduction in the number of consultations on planning applications for a highway authority view, following a 9.5% increase the previous year. It is, however, a concern that the response turnaround performance has regressed from 71% within 14 days in the previous year to 59% in 2005/6. This can be explained in part due to some staff absences due to illness, personnel changes following retirements, and the delay in commissioning new IT software.

With regard to Monitoring and Enforcement there has been some improvements in 2005/06 with 61% of complaints relating to alleged breaches of minerals and waste planning control being resolved within 13 weeks as compared with 47% the previous year. This still falls short of the PDC3 target of 80% and Members will be aware that additional staff resources are currently being pursued to underpin this work on the back of the Government's recent introduction of a fee regime for the monitoring of active minerals and waste sites. (Report considered by Committee in April 2006 - EEC/06/14/HQ and Minute *76 refer).

2005/06 again saw a significant level of developer contributions secured through Section 106 Agreements towards social infrastructure (mainly education) provision. At £1.08 million this was less than in 2004/05 when £3.08 million was achieved but this included £2 million in contributions secured towards the building of the new Clyst Heath School in Exeter, and the 2005/06 figure is well ahead of the £0.57 million achieved in 2003/04.

In terms of highway contributions, some £3.48 million of works and contributions towards highways and transportation measures was achieved in 2005/06 compared with £3.71 million in the previous year, with a shift of emphasis towards financial contribution towards highways and transportation measures as opposed to provision of works in the past year.

The whole area of planning obligations has continued to be the subject of national debate and speculation over the last year with consultation papers on the possible introduction of an Optional Planning Charge or a Planning Gain Supplement as an alternative mechanism to the established procedure of negotiated planning obligations. In the absence of any early resolution of this issue and the publication of updated planning guidance in ODPM Circular 05/2005 in July 2005, the Council is currently undertaking a review of its own procedures to see if improved processes might lead to better consistency and/or enhanced levels of contribution being achieved.

Review of Performance Indicators and Targets

It is now 5 years since the suite of Development Control/Management Performance Indicator targets were first drawn up, as part of the Development Control Best Value Review in 2001.

There are currently 3 statutory Best Value Performance Indicators that the County Council are obliged to complete returns on (see Appendix II to this report) - BV109(a); BV111; and BV200 (a), (b) and (c).

Additionally there are currently 14 local performance indicators PDC1-7 and HDC 1-3.

It is now timely to review these indicators and to consider whether or not they and the targets set locally remain relevant to an understanding of the performance of the Development Management processes.

In Appendix II, therefore, recommendations are made (in bold type) in respect of future amendment to the indicators used and also targets to be set - which should whilst being challenging should also have some prospect of achievability.

Budget

The Committee again delivered its service in 2005/06 well within its allocated budget, in part due to higher than anticipated income streams from Section 38 highway estate road adoption inspection fees and staff salary savings during vacancies. The County Council also benefited from receipt of some £106,000 from the Government in Planning Development Grants in 2005/06 which was used primarily to inject additional resources into the additional work required to undertake the requirements of the new Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework system; the Master Planning Works on the Cranbrook and Sherford New Communities and the development of E-Government facilities for Development Control alongside the new IT software. Some unspent monies from 2005/06 have been carried forward in the current year to underpin deferred printing costs for the Waste Local Plan (adopted June 2006) and the ongoing New Communities work.

Service Improvements

The introduction of the new IT software has now been achieved but was not in time to help to deliver the step change in process improvements required to meet our BVPI and LPI targets in 2005/06.

Despite this slippage considerable progress was achieved in developing web based - e- enabled services for Development Management to the extent that in the December 2005 survey conducted by Pendleton Associates, the County Council's planning web pages scored the maximum 21 points and secured the maximum Planning Development Grant allocation for e-government for 2006/07.

4. Equality Impact Needs Assessment Considerations

Whilst this Annual Report does not raise any specific issues relating to equality/diversity issues, there is a commitment, reinforced in the Development Control Charter and, the Council's corporately adopted Customer Standards, for equal access to Planning Services for all. Equality Impact and Needs Assessments are formally being carried out in respect of appropriate areas of work.

5. Comments/Conclusions

A significant workload has again been successfully delivered by and on behalf of the Committee in 2005/06 and progress continues to be made in delivering service improvements pursuant to the earlier Best Value Improvement Plan and the national planning reform/modernisation agenda.

Five years on from the Best Value Review into the service it is considered to be an appropriate time to take stock of the relevance of the Performance Indicators and their targets and the Committee is asked to consider and endorse the amendments suggested in Appendix II to this report.

6. Reasons for Recommendation/Alternatives Options Considered

Presenting Annual Reports to Committee on performance matters is recognised nationally as representing good practice as it enables Members to review performance targets regularly in a comprehensive manner.

Edward Chorlton

Electoral Divisions: All

Local Government Act 1972

List of Background Papers

Contact for enquiries: Malcolm West

Room No: ABG Lucombe House

Tel No: (01392) 382867

Background Paper Date File Ref.

None - -

mw040706dca sc/annual report monitoring 4 100706 Appendix I To EEC/06/88/HQ

Devon County Council – Development Control Summary of Casework 2005/2006 with Comparative Returns for 2004/2005

2005/06 2004/2005 1. PLANNING AUTHORITY

No. of “County Matter” planning applications determined 68 97 No. of County Council development planning applications determined 116 132 No. of Listed Building Consent recommendations 10 15 No. of Article 21 determinations 103 162 No. of strategic planning consultations with substantial professional input 27 25 No. of planning appeals 0 1 No. of enforcement notices issued 2 2 No. of stop notices served 1 2 No. of planning contravention notices served 1 1 Number of breach of condition notices served 1 1 Enforcement Complaints Investigated 35 42 ROMPs Phase I Sites 0 1 ROMPs Phase II Sites 0 0 Schedule 14 Review Sites 1 0

2. PLANNING OBLIGATIONS [SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE] DEVELOPERS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

Total no. of developments considered 288 304 Total no. of developments where a contribution has been 153 146 requested and totalling £- £2.04m £1.92m 53 93 Total no. of payments received and totalling £- £1,085,987 £3,083,693

3. HIGHWAY AUTHORITY

No. of consultations on planning applications responded 4,621 * 4,931 * to Planning Appeals – Highway evidence given 137 164 No. of search enquiries 2,766 3,741 Section 106 Agreements – total value of highway works completed £1,992,420 £3,025,325 Section 106 Agreements – total of developers’ financial contributions towards highways and transportation measures £1,486,356 £689,287 Section 38 Agreements [Highway adoptions] - total new active agreements 67 73 Section 38 Agreements – income from fees £375,766 £506,041

NB: This summary is not an exhaustive list of the casework dealt with by Development Control staff but it is intended to give a broad indication of the main activities undertaken on the Committee’s behalf

* Excludes those applications responded to directly whilst at District Council Offices.

Appendix II To EEC/06/88/HQ – DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUMMARY OF BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE INDICATOR AND LOCAL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR RETURNS – 2005/2006

(i) STATUTORY INDICATORS

Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Comment Performance Indicator 2001/ 2001/ 2002/ 2002/ 2003/ 2003/ 2004/ 2004/ 2005/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 BV Planning cost per head of £3.20 £2.37 £3.20 £1.98 £2.50 £2.21 N/A Indicator removed from 2004/2005 107 population

Percentage of major and New indicator from 2002/2003. BV minor “County Matter” National Target is 60% - suggest N/A N/A 50% 68% 60% 69% 65% 54% 68% 56% 60% 60% 109 applications determined that Local Target should reflect within 13 wks this.

Percentage of applicants BV Survey conducted every 3 years. Due satisfied with the service N/A N/A N/A N/A 93% 91% N/A N/A N/A N/A 93% N/A 111 to be conducted in 2006/07. received

Plan making

(a) Do you have a New indicator from 2003/04. development plan (or alterations to it) that has Devon Structure Plan 2001–2016 - N/A No No Yes No N/A been adopted in the last adopted October 2004. 5 years and the end date of which has not expired? Devon County Minerals Local Plan – adopted June 2004. BV 200 Devon County Waste Local Plan - old (b) If ‘No’, are there First Deposit Version – January 2003. proposals on deposit for an alteration or Devon County Waste Local Plan – replacement, with a Revised Deposit July 2005 - adopted published timetable for June 2006. adopting those N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A alterations or replacement plan within 3 years?

(i) STATUTORY INDICATORS (Continued)

Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Comment Performance Indicator 2001/ 2001/ 2002/ 2002/ 2003/ 2003/ 2004/ 2004/ 2005/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/

2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2008

BV 200a - Did you submit Revised BVPI from 2005/06. the Local Development LDS submitted September 2004 and Scheme (LDS) by 28 N/A Yes Yes N/A N/A adopted July 2005. (1st revision of March 2005 and LDS due to be adopted July 2006). thereafter maintain a 3- year rolling programme?

Revised BVPI from 2005/06 BV BV 200b – Have you met the milestones which the 200 LDS milestones as adopted 2005 - current Local N/A Yes No Yes Yes new met in part only. Development Scheme (LDS) sets out?

BV 200c – Did you publish an annual Revised BVPI from 2005/06. monitoring report by N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes LDS Annual Monitoring Report December of the last published December 2005 year?

(ii) LOCAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – PLANNING

Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Performance Indicator 2001/ 2001/ 2002/ 2002/ 2003/ 2003/ 2004/ 2004/ 2005/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ Comment 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 Percentage of Percentages are based on the total applications for County number of decisions taken during the PDC Council’s own 50% 19% 60% 38% 65% 34% 70% 48% 75% 58% 75%% 80% financial year. Target based on 1a developments Government's statutory target for determined within 8 wks District Council's decision.

Percentages are based on the total Percentage of “County PDC number of decisions taken during the Matter” applications 15% 21% 20% 23% 25% 45% 35% 29% 40% 34% - - 1b financial year. Recommend delete determined within 8 wks as Local Performance Indicator.

Average time taken (in Formerly statutory BV 110. PDC weeks) to determine all 21 29 22 14 18 14 16 15 15 15 - Recommend delete as Local 1c “County Matter” Performance Indicator. applications

Percentage of ROMPS & Periodic Review Majority of ROMPs determinations PDC submissions determined 80% 50% 80% 0% 80% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% - - now completed. Recommend delete 2 within 13 wks of receipt as Local Performance Indicator. of final details

Percentage of complaints relating to Targets reflect agreed Monitoring & PDC alleged breaches of Enforcement Policy. Additional staff 80% 95% 80% 93% 80% 76% 80% 47% 80% 61% 70% 75% 3 minerals and waste resources being sought on planning controls introduction of Monitoring Fees. resolved within 13 wks

Targets reflect agreed Monitoring & Percentage of active Enforcement Policy (as amended by PDC minerals and waste sites 100% 88% 100% 76% 100% 64% 50% 58% 50% 53% 50% 50% Committee resolution September 4 visited at least once per 2004 – report ED/04/200/HQ and year Minute *321 refer). Target reflects the Government’s intention to move towards 90% Percentage of “County PDC delegation, but recognises the higher Matters” dealt with 55% 52% 60% 65% 65% 83% 70% 68% 70% 69% 70% 70% 5a level of complexity and potential under delegated powers controversy with County Matter applications.

(ii) LOCAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – PLANNING (Continued)

Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Performance Indicator 2001/ 2001/ 2002/ 2002/ 2003/ 2003/ 2004/ 2004/ 2005/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ Comment 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 Percentage of DCC Target reflects the Government’s PDC development 65% 72% 70% 72% 75% 67% 80% 84% 80% 81% 85% 90% intention to move towards 90% 5b applications dealt with delegation. under delegated powers

Social Infrastructure Planning Obligations – 155 188 200 222 200 244 200 146 200 153 200 200 These targets are very subjective and total number of PDC £4.7m £3.06 £3m £2.76 £3m £2.88 £3m £1.92 £3m £2.04 £3m £3m totally dependent upon the nature of developments where a 6a m m m m m the development proposals coming sum has been forward at the time. requested + total sum requested

Social Infrastructure The payments received reflect Planning Obligations – PDC 35 32 45 63 65 63 70 93 75 53 80 85 schemes often permitted in previous total number of 6b £0.45 £0.24 £0.55 £0.67 £0.8m 0.57m £0.9m £3.08 £1.0m £1.09 £1.1m £1.2m years coming through to payments received + m m m m m m implementation. total sum received

Number of review PDC Not Ombudsman Investigations & Judicial processes that go N/A 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 known Review cases. against us

(iii) LOCAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – HIGHWAYS

Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Performance Indicator 2001/ 2001/ 2002/ 2002/ 2003/ 2003/ 2004/ 2004/ 2005/ 2005/ 2006/ 2007/ Comment 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2008 Improved targets are only achievable Percentage of Highway once IT software is in place. Suggest HDC Consultation requests 75% 71% 80% 66% 80% 66% 80% 71% 80% 59% 80% 80% that 21 days be now measured to 1 responded to within 14 reflect statutory consultation days period.

Level of District Council HDC satisfaction with Survey conducted every 3 years. N/A N/A N/A N/A 90% 94% N/A N/A N/A N/A 95% N/A 2 response to Highway Next survey due 2006/07. Consultation requests

Primary Search Enquiries carried out Percentage of searches HDC Not Not for Exeter City Council area only. responded to within 4 N/A N/A 90% 100% 90% 99% 90% 99% - - 3 known known Recommend delete as Local days Performance Indicator .