Agenda item

The Executive Director commenced discussions by stating that the PAS review had been commissioned to assess governance, relationships, barriers to decision making and improvements required for:

• Development Management
• Local Plan preparation
• Officer-Member working
• Readiness for forthcoming planning reforms

Tim Burton, PAS Planning Consultant carried out a presentation to discuss the Development Management workstream.

The key points were discussed as below:

• Procedures and protocols were generally sound.
• Key issues related to strained Officer–Member relationships.
• There was insufficient early engagement prior to Planning Committee.
• Need for a “reset” of working practices.

Recommendations included:

• Improved collaboration.
• Training on defensible decision making.
• Addressing relationship with Worcestershire Highways.
• Review of enforcement processes.
• Improving Planning Committee focus.
• Reviewing livestream retention.
• Increasing Member involvement at pre application stage.
• Improving attendance at site visits.

David Coleman, PAS Planning Consultant also carried out a presentation to Members and discussed the Local Plan workstream.

The main points discussed were:

• Significant divergence between Members on the draft development strategy.
• Lack of political buy in and sense of “ownership” of the plan.
• Insufficient shared vision for the district’s future.
• Evidence base gaps (e.g. Green Belt assessment, infrastructure planning).
• Poor relationships with the Worcestershire County Council (WCC) on transport and education.
• Need for clearer governance of the Strategic Planning Steering Group (SPSG).
• Importance of a 30-month statutory timetable under the new system.
• Emphasis on risk management, programme management and Member training.
• Need to develop a spatial vision and place making objectives.

After the presentations, Members discussed the following:

• The need for joint Officer-Member behavioural, culture, trust and relationship building external training.  – In response the Executive Director agreed that building relations for Officers and Members was a good suggestion and highlighted the portfolio’s comments about training being designed to be more engaging.  The PAS Consultant suggested that some training requirements would be tailored differently for Members and Officers and considerations of roles were advised.  It was also suggested that workshops for Local Plan discussions could be a good option to encourage open discussions and also to have better clarity of Officer and Member roles.
• Possible Officer training required for complex subjects i.e. grey belt areas.
• A suggestion that the recommendation to continue active Senior Leadership support should include all Officers and Members who could provide influence.
• Was it expected that all the recommendations would be implemented? – In response the PAS Consultants advised that the recommendations should be implemented, were necessary and valid and the priority was to have an action plan for implementing the recommendations.  It was felt that building relations was the overriding issue.  The Executive Director advised the Board that the suggested recommendations would go to Cabinet in March along with an action plan.
• Suggestions that cross party working groups should include a chair but not include the portfolio holder, to encourage neutrality.
• Why it had taken so long for a PAS report when individual issues had been raised by Members for some time?
• Urgency of progressing the Local Plan due to speculative applications. – In response the Leader explained that the formula for housing and infrastructure provision had changed since the National Planning Policy Framework rules in 2022.  However, this had been challenged with the Minister and therefore the rules would be revisited.  There was also a statutory requirement to educate children.
• How would the recommendations be progressed and when would the action plan be published to ensure accountability, transparency and mitigation of risks? – The Executive Director explained that the recommendations and action plan would go to Cabinet in March.  In response Members expressed the view that considerations to Cabinet would delay progress and earlier actions were necessary to meet the statutory deadline.  The Leader advised that she was happy to review timelines, however, external advice may also be sought and the first Planning Subgroup was meeting the next day to discuss the recommendations.  The Executive Director added that some recommendations could be expedited.
• Clearer communication on enforcement performance was also raised. – Members were informed that this would form part of the action plan, along with timescales.
• Resource and staffing capacity issues, with Members sometimes having difficulties contacting Planning Officers.  What plans were being put in place? – In response the Executive Director informed that the medium-term strategies were being explored.
• To review the necessity for Members to contact Planning Officers, prior to planning meetings taking place. – It was agreed that specific training would be put in place to assist with this.
• Why there was a breakdown in relations with WCC and when would a Memo of Understanding (MOU) be in place for transport planning support? – The Leader explained that Officers were working to rectify the issues and would be forming a different approach for this issue.
• Concerns about historic delays and political management of the plan was also raised by Members.
• A requirement for consistent updates and improved engagement mechanisms was also requested. – In response the Portfolio Holder suggested that Members provided details, who would liaise with Planning Officers.
• What was a realistic timescale for the Council to consider the adoption of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)? – In response the PAS Consultant suggested that it would take 12 months to draft a plan, requiring viability evidence to underpin the plan.
• Some Members had frustrations with past working groups not working collaboratively and lacked inconsistencies in Member attendance.  Other Members were frustrated that numerous recommendations had been suggested in group meetings but had not been carried through.  It was also suggested that future working group meetings needed to be open and honest and learn from the past to move forwards.
• Stream retention and transparency for public confidence was agreed as recommendation.

Following the above discussions two motions were moved, seconded and agreed.

RESOLVEDthat

1)    Joint Officer-Member relationship building training be included as a formal action within the PAS Action Plan; and

2)    The PAS Action Plan be brought to Cabinet at the earliest possible opportunity (earlier than the provisional date of 26th March 2026, if feasible).

[Between the hours of 8:49pm and 9:00pm the meeting was adjourned for a short comfort break].