BESEIGED by applications, Herefordshire Council’s planning system faces a “fit for purpose” review.

A cross party scrutiny task team is expected to report back ahead of the council election in May on options for change.

The review will examine a number of elements, including the way the current system works, concerns within the current system, and  “best practice” that could be adopted from other councils.

Last year, the council re-structured its planning teams - responsible for development management and built & natural environment - to reflect the economic situation and income projections.

But the number of applications - particularly for large residential developments - has increased significantly since with consequential impacts on the length validation, registration and determination times.

The council is yet to adopt a core strategy setting out its vision for the long-term development of the county until 2031.

Against this background, the scrutiny task and finish group - made up of Councillors Sebastian Bowen, Chris Chappell, Barry Durkin, Anthony Powers, and Alan Seldon – is to report on whether the current system is fit for purpose – particularly in terms of public confidence.

The operation of the council’s constitution in relation to planning matters has already been the subject of a review, the executive response to this was received by the general overview and scrutiny committee in February last year.

Outcomes from specific planning applications are not within the scope of the latest review.

In 2009, the  council moved to a single planning committee system after two separate reviews called for changes to a “cumbersome” area committee system determining around 2,500 applications expected each year.

Then, Herefordshire was one of the few councils to retain area planning  with separate officer teams, reports, and staff attendance at up to four committees a month.

This system stayed in place when other committees influencing council decisions and policy making were broken up through the introduction of the cabinet system.

Opposition to planning reform then threatened to be the most significant political stand-off within the council since its formation.

Long-serving “backbench” councillors - still simmering at the way the cabinet system seemingly denied them a voice they had under the old committee system – feared losing what representative voice they still had on the old area planning committees.

Against this were two separate reviews commissioned by the council that made a case for the “cumbersome” area committees to be replaced by a single committee.

That single committee 19 member committee was backed by full council in July 2009 by 35 votes to 13 as responsible for all planning decisions not delegated to officers.

PLANNING REVIEW – WHAT WILL BE EXAMINED

Current practice for the processing of planning applications

Are present planning and enforcement functions effective and efficient

Further changes to present structures

The status of relationships with other teams and consultees that feed into the planning application process

Examples of best practice elsewhere in the UK

The way “full cost recovery” is working

Are resources being supplemented fast enough to meet demand?

Is delivery vulnerable to annual leave and sickness?

Do officers have the skills and qualifications needed to cover the full range of expertise required within the service?

The use of external consultants

Training and support for officers and officer casework ratios  

The working environment for officers.

Resources for enforcement and appeals

Public perceptions of the service and availability of information

The current position with countywide policies and guidance on the likes of polytunnels, solar panels, broilers, use of agricultural buildings, and nutrient management

Mitigations in place for pending or anticipated future changes to government policy