The committee considered the report of the Senior Specialist Advisor (Planning) which provided a summary of performance in relation to key areas of the Development Management Services for the third quarter (July – September) 2015 and the Customer Satisfaction Survey (June  - October) 2015.

Given the many varied types of planning application received Central Government required that all Councils report the performance in a consistent and coherent manner. Therefore the many varied applications were grouped together into three broad categories Major, Minor and Others.  Applications falling into each category were outlined within the report.

In analysing the performance for the processing of these differing types of application the Government allow 13 weeks for the processing Major applications and 8 weeks for processing the Minor and Other categories. 

In addition the report also included information about recent appeal decisions.  Members were requested to note that any decision made to refuse an application opened the potential for an appeal by the applicant to the Planning Inspectorate.

As members were aware the majority of the applications received were granted planning permission, however for those that were refused and challenged through to an appeal it was considered important to analyse the appeal decisions in order to determine and evaluate whether lessons needed to be learned, or interpretations needed to be given different weight at the decision making stage.  In addition the evaluation of the appeal decisions would also go some way to indicate the robustness and the correct application of the current and emerging policy context at both a local and national level.  In the current survey period a claim for costs of £15,000 from the Courtlands Hotel had been received.

Officers considered that in granting planning permission for 91% of all application received, planning services of Eastbourne Borough Council had supported and stimulated the local economy and had also helped to meet the aspirations of the applicants.  Only where there were substantive material planning considerations was an application refused.

The assessment of the performance of planning services showed that the team were performing at or over the National PI threshold and that there were at this time no special measure issues.  

Appendix 1 to the report included further application data by ward and also the number and types of pre-application requests received.

It had been a significant period since the previous report on the planning enforcement function, table 11 of the report provided a position statement of the performance for the entire year to date.

Members noted some of the data placed high volumes of enforcement  action in the Devonshire ward, which reflected the focus given by the Difficult Property Group through S215 (Untidy Sites) legislation and also emphasised the support for the ‘Driving Devonshire Forward’ policy document.

Members requested that a list of long outstanding enforcement cases be included into this report in future.

Members were apprised of the results of the Customer Satisfaction Survey which had been sent to all applicants and agents, seeking their views on how the Council had dealt with applications.

There were a number of potential improvements listed within the report largely around improving accessibility and level of information available on the Council’s website.  Overall the majority of customers surveyed were happy with the service provided.

The committee thanked the Senior Specialist Advisor (Planning) for providing the detailed enforcement case information and expressed their thanks to the officers for their continued efforts in improving the Planning function and related activities.

NOTED.