Agenda item

To consider the views of the Local Councils, as attached.

The Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Scrutiny Panel reported upon the progress of the review of the District Council’s Area Plans Sub-Committees. The Committee were informed that nine Parish and Town Councils had responded to the consultation letter, which had indicated unanimous support for the principle of local Area Plans Sub-Committees, as well as the principle that planning decisions should be made by the local District Councillors for the area concerned. In addition, it also emerged that Sub-Committee ‘A’ should probably remain unchanged whilst the areas should reflect the differences between rural and urban communities. The fundamental issues were whether the number of Sub-Committees should remain at four or be reduced to three, and what areas the revised Sub-Committees should cover.

The Panel had yet to reach a final decision, however the following options had been identified:

·                     3 Sub-Committees, the present Plans A plus two new Sub-Committees based upon a rural/urban split;

·                     3 Sub-Committees, the present Plans A plus two new Sub-Committees based upon a east/west split;

·                     4 Sub-Committees, but amend the current boundaries to reflect community differences;

·                     3 Sub-Committees, by combining Plans B and C; or

·                     No change.

The Panel was due to meet again on 4 December 2006 to discuss the options and make a final recommendation to the Council.

The Epping Forest branch of the Essex Association of Local Councils felt that the emphasis on determining planning applications within eight weeks had compromised the quality of decisions taken and that the emphasis should be on a balanced decision that was good for the District. However, a letter had been sent to the local councils in July 2006 that had suggested meeting the eight-week deadline for determining applications was no longer a priority. In respect of the future structure of the Area Planning Sub-Committees, the local councils had not reached a consensus on the best arrangement of area and sub-committee. However, it was felt that the current focus on only three sub-committees was wrong, and the retention of Sub-Committee ‘A’ in its current form would still see 40% of planning applications handled by one Sub-Committee.

The Joint Chief Executive (Community) responded that the District Council had not been meeting its targets in respect of determining planning applications, and hence it had been placed in special measures. The District Council was now meeting the Government’s targets and had been taken out of special measures, but had not achieved top quartile status in respect of its best value performance indicators. The District Council needed to continue to meet the Government’s targets in order to avoid more intensive Comprehensive Performance Assessments. However, Councils who achieve top quartile status generally refused more applications, and the District Council’s quality of decision-making was generally good, as evidenced by the Council’s performance at Planning Appeals. In respect of the future structure of the Area Plans Sub-Committees, it was for members to decide the number of Sub-Committees that there should be in the future.

The Assistant Head of Planning and Economic Development (Forward Planning) reminded the Committee that the Planning Delivery Grant received by the District Council was based purely upon the speed of decision-making rather the quality, with the Council meeting the eight-week target to determine the majority of its applications. The District Council had received in excess of £100,000 Planning Delivery Grant over the last four years, and this funding had been utilised to further improve performance.

Loughton Town Council suggested that Areas Plans Sub-Committee ‘A’ should be split into two sub-committees meeting fortnightly in order to allow all the members in the area to serve and to ease the time pressure for the determination of applications. The Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Scrutiny Panel stated that the majority of the Councillors within the Sub-Committee ‘A’ area had opposed this idea, and further advised the local councillors to either consult their District Councillors or attend the meeting of the Constitutional Affairs Scrutiny Panel on 4 December 2006.