Report to-follow.

Report added 18 March 2022.

Revised report added 23 March 2022.

The Cabinet Member for Planning introduced the tabled report which presented performance statistics relating to planning appeal decisions and the costs incurred.

A Member referred to paragraph 3.2 in the report and welcomed that the Council’s performance indicator of major applications allowed at appeal was 2%, significantly below the threshold of 10%.

A Member welcomed the comprehensive report and in referring to paragraph 2.1 of the report, considered that planning officer time should be recorded for individual jobs.  The Cabinet Member for Planning explained that this would be an unrealistic demand on planning officers, and very time consuming as well.  The Member considered it could be beneficial for a manager to understand how long was being taken on particular applications.  In response, the Cabinet Member for Planning said that with improved software this could potentially be a practice in the future.  The Head of Planning Services said that he was not aware of any other local authorities which undertook time records for individual jobs.  He added that a few years ago, the Planning Advisory Service did have a time sheet in place, but it was too complicated and was not implemented.

Members welcomed the report and thanked officers for compiling it quickly.

The Chairman invited Members to comment on the appendices.

Appendix I

In response to a question, the Policy and Performance Support Officer confirmed that the dates listed were when the decision on an application had been made.  A Member spoke positively on the figures in the final column and the Cabinet Member for Planning acknowledged that the over 98% effective decision figure was very efficient and that they were a robust set of decisions overall.

Appendix II

The Head of Planning Services explained that the figures for 2021/22 did not show cases that might yet go to appeal or there was no appeal decision to-date.

Appendix IV

The Head of Planning Services gave an overview of the appendix as it had not been printed clearly.  The average appeals dismissed were:  UK 72%; Kent 75%; Swale 68%, with similar ‘family’ authorities being 70%.  He explained that Swale’s figure was probably lower because the Council had a significantly higher proportion of major applications than other local authorities; Swale was a unique local authority as it had constraints such as coastal locations; Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a mix of urban and rural, and so there were naturally controversial applications, rather than the figure being low because of the quality of the decision-making.

Appendix V

In response to a question, the Cabinet Member for Planning explained that the Wises Lane, Borden and Barton Hill Road, Minster applications had high costs because they were huge applications, with a lot of issues and detail to them.

The Head of Planning Services said that the three ‘unknown’ costs related to one site and the total cost was £3,500.

A Member said it would be beneficial to keep an ongoing record of awards of appeal costs going forward.  The Cabinet Member for Planning said that this could be looked into in the future.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for Planning and the Head of Planning Services for attending the meeting for this item.

Resolved: 

(1) That the performance statistics and costs implications in relation to planning appeals be noted.