Minutes:
84.1 The Chief Planning Officer presented the report to the Committee outlining before Members the creation of an annual pre-application advice service survey in 2018, the results of previous surveys, the results of a new pre-application advice service officer survey, a summary of the survey information and questions, and introduced 3 witnesses in attendance who were available to answer questions from Members regarding their experiences with the pre-application advice service.
84.2 Councillor Barrett questioned whether 45% of survey respondents rating the quality of advice received between 8 and 10 out of 10 was a satisfactory amount. The Chief Planning Officer responded that 45% was not acceptable and that he would like to see future survey results above 50%.
84.3 Councillor Barrett further questioned the process behind an overturn of officer recommendation between the pre-application advice phase and the decision phase. The Chief Planning Officer responded that pre-application advice is given based on strict information provided to officers and that the recommendation may change due to new information coming to light.
84.4 The Witnesses responded that a change in decision on an application between the pre-application stage and the decision stage is often due to different officers handling each stage alongside the introduction of new consultation responses and information.
84.5 Councillor Ekpenyong questioned if significant changes in officer advice during the pre-application stage were passed to senior officers for checking and verification. The Chief Planning Officer responded that all pre-application advice was checked off by senior officers before it was dispatched to applicants.
84.6 Councillor Dawson questioned if the recommendations proposed focussed more on officers than customers and whether this was an effective route to take in improving the service. The Chief Planning Officer responded that the recommendations intended to change the customer survey to an “open” rather than annual survey which would allow more feedback to be captured and encourage fast, real-time changes to the service.
84.7 The Witnesses responded that a change to an “open” survey would allow applicants to submit feedback on a case-by-case basis which could lead to more accurate results regarding the service.
84.8 Councillor Scarff questioned how much dialogue takes place between applicants and planning officers during the pre-application advice stage and how much information was sent by the applicants to planning officers. The Witnesses responded that the costs of the service meant that smaller companies often submit minimal information as part of the pre-application advice stage and only submit more once they receive an indication as to whether the application will be accepted due to the investment needed.
84.9 Councillor Grandon queried how Babergh and Mid Suffolk’s planning authority compares to other planning authorities and what could be done to improve the pre-application service. The Witnesses responded that Babergh and Mid Suffolk compared well to other authorities, particularly due to the ability to engage with consultees at the pre-application stage, but that communication between planning officers and applicants was not as good as it could be.
84.10 Councillor Lindsay questioned about the time taken by officers to provide in-depth pre-application advice and whether the financial charges to access the service appropriately cover this time. The Area Planning Manager responded that the time taken to put together and issue pre-application advice had recently been reviewed in conjunction with the costs of the service and that it was deemed appropriate.
84.11 Councillor Lindsay further questioned the reasons why officers took a significant amount of time to issue pre-application advice for straightforward applications. The Area Planning Manager responded that the same level of detail was provided in responses towards both straightforward applications and complex applications.
84.12 Councillor Carter queried if the survey responses were case specific or account for a customer’s experience with the pre-application service across an entire year and whether the survey records any change in advice given by officers. The Professional Lead for Digital Solutions responded that the survey did not ask for the outcome of the pre-application advice and that responses cover a customer’s annual experience.
84.13 Councillor Ekpenyong queried why the advice received on heritage was regarded as being better value for money than other forms of advice provided as part of the pre-application service. The Chief Planning Officer responded that heritage advice required officers to be on-site which allowed for better understanding of the issues and more communication with the applicants.
84.14 The Witnesses responded that heritage advice received was not consistent and that they generally had a poorer experience than what was reflected in the survey figures. Councillor Lindsay raised that the results of the survey may be inaccurate due to only a small number of applicants requesting and receiving heritage advice.
84.15 Councillor Welham questioned if there would be benefits to introducing a check-list of information that should be submitted as part of the pre-application process. The Witnesses responded that a formal check-list would not be necessary but there would be benefits from having the opportunity to submit further information that the case officer can request for before issuing a final response.
84.16 Councillors debated the item on the following issues:
· Introducing a target for customer satisfaction over a short-term period.
· Encouraging Officers to work in the office more regularly for more collaborative working and mentoring opportunities to be able to provide more accurate pre-application advice.
· The proposed recommendation to make the survey “open” rather than annual and the potential benefits.
· Quarterly internal audits of the pre-application advice provided.
· Refreshing the questions asked on the survey to encourage more responses
· Recording the outcome of the pre-application advice received on the survey so that answers can be viewed in context
84.17 Councillor Welham put forward the following amended recommendations to the Committee:
· That the contents of the report be noted by the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
· That Officers be requested to alter the frequency and content of the survey of customer experience of the pre-application service to “open” rather than annual.
· That Officers be requested to undertake an annual survey of Development Management Planning Officers of their experience of customer service.
· That Officers develop a model for quarterly audit of timeliness, quality and customer service including to assess the effectiveness of the pre-application advice process in the validation of applications and correlation of advice with outcome.
· That the Corporate Director for Planning and Building Control and the Chief Planning Officer review the results of the above-mentioned surveys and audit with the Client Side Panel and report at least bi-annually to the Cabinet Members for Planning.
· That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee requests the Director for Planning and Building Control and the Chief Planning Officer consider arrangements to provide adequate training and mentoring opportunities for all planning staff with a view to providing an improved level of pre-app service.
· That the Corporate Director for Planning and Building Control and the Chief Planning Officer aim for an overall quality of advice level of satisfaction of 60% by 30th April 2025.
84.18 Councillor Lindsay proposed the recommendations as read out by the Chair.
84.19 Councillor Grandon seconded the recommendations.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
3.1. That the contents of the report be noted by the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
3.2. That Officers be requested to alter the frequency and content of the survey of customer experience of the pre-application service to “open” rather than annual.
3.3. That Officers be requested to undertake an annual survey of Development Management Planning Officers of their experience of customer service.
3.4. That Officers develop a model for quarterly audit of timeliness, quality and customer service including to assess the effectiveness of the pre-application advice process in the validation of applications and correlation of advice with outcome.
3.5. That the Corporate Director for Planning and Building Control and the Chief Planning Officer review the results of the above-mentioned surveys and audit with the Client Side Panel and report at least bi-annually to the Cabinet Members for Planning.
3.6. That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee requests the Director for Planning and Building Control and the Chief Planning Officer consider arrangements to provide adequate training and mentoring opportunities for all planning staff with a view to providing an improved level of pre-app service.
3.7. That the Corporate Director for Planning and Building Control and the Chief Planning Officer aim for an overall quality of advice level of satisfaction of 60% by 30th April 2025.
Supporting documents: