Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence received.

There were no substitute members appointed.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest made by Members.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 May 2016 (attached) and 14 September 2016 (to follow).

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 May 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Please note that in accordance with the agreed Protocol for Public Speaking at Overview and Scrutiny, the right to speak applies to agenda item 10.

The right of the public to speak does not apply to the following agenda items: Apologies; Appointment of Substitute Members; Minutes; the Forward Plan, the Scrutiny Work Programme or any agenda item that is not accompanied by a written report.

The right of the public to speak, or indeed to attend, does not apply to business on the agenda in respect of which a resolution to exclude the press and public for the consideration of confidential or exempt business has been carried.

The Chairman, with the consent of the meeting, has the discretion to vary the public speaking arrangements.  

The Team Leader – Democratic Support advised that in accordance with the public speaking protocol, the following questions had been received from members of the public:

Q1. In the absence of Mr R Preddy who submitted the question, the Chairman asked it on his behalf:

“With reference to Lydden Hill Race Circuit, why has Dover District Council repeatedly allowed the track to justify development after the fact, by way of retrospective planning permission? This includes the two 'temporary' grandstands granted permission after their construction.”

The Head of Regeneration and Development advised that applications for retrospective planning permission were a normal method of regularising a situation where works had been undertaken without permission. The Council would consider the application and, if not granted, take necessary action.

In respect of the grandstands, these had been granted temporary permission for 3 years ending in January 2013 and no complaints had been received in respect of these since the permission expired. In the absence of complaints, no enforcement action had been taken since the expiry of the temporary permission as a new planning application had been received and the Council did not normally take action where a pending application existed.

The current live planning application had been received 18 months ago and prior to that the Council had been involved in pre-application discussions with the circuit.  

Q2. Ms P James asked the following question:

“With reference to the Article 4 Direction (1990) in connection with Lydden Hill Race Circuit:  Article 4 Direction removes any permitted use or development to additional land situated adjacent to the LHRC site, which is also owned by the Circuit proprietor.  Why then has Dover District Council not enforced this Direction in respect of camping, caravanning and grass tracking at any point since 2008?”

The Head of Regeneration and Development advised that the Article 4 Direction applied to land to the east of the circuit. The complaints received so far related to alleged breaches that were either sporadic, short term or low level and had ended by the time the complaint was received. As a consequence it had not been deemed an expedient use of resources to take enforcement action. Furthermore, no complaints had been received relating to grass track racing.

The planning application that had been received by the Council contained an application for camping and therefore enforcement action would not be taken as it could prejudice the outcome of the application.

In response to a comment from the questioner, it was confirmed that there were no Article 4 Directions relating to land to the south of the circuit.

The Chairman asked that a written response explaining why the Council had not taken enforcement action against camping during the period from 2011 until the submission of the current planning application be sent to the questioner.

There were no items of business for consideration.

(a)    Items placed on the agenda by a Member of the Committee or any individual Non-Executive Member

       Any individual Councillor may request that a matter is placed on the agenda of one of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

       There are no items for consideration.

(b)    Call-In

       Executive Decisions may be called-in by the Chairman or Spokesperson of the Scrutiny (Policy and Performance) Committee or any three non-executive members. Call-Ins are heard by the Scrutiny (Policy and Performance) Committee unless it decides to refer the matter to the Scrutiny (Community and Regeneration) Committee.

       There are no items for consideration.

(c)    Public Petitions

       There are no items for consideration.     

There were no items of business for consideration.

The Team Leader – Democratic Support presented the Notice of Forthcoming Key Decisions to the Committee for its consideration.

RESOLVED:   That the Notice of Forthcoming Key Decisions be noted.

The Team Leader – Democratic Support presented the Scrutiny Work Programme to the Committee for its consideration and advised that East Kent Housing had been confirmed for the 16 November 2016 meeting and Southern Water for the 14 December 2016 meeting.

Councillor T A Bond advised that he had raised the issue of attending a meeting of the committee with South Eastern Trains but that he did not expect them to attend. Members discussed whether to invite a trade union representative to attend a future meeting in view of the lack of response from South Eastern Trains.

Councillor S Hill proposed that a senior trade union representative be invited to attend in the absence of South Eastern Trains and this was duly seconded.

On their being an equality of votes, the Chairman used her casting vote and it was

RESOLVED:  That an invitation be extended to a senior trade union representative to attend a future meeting of the committee to discuss South Eastern Trains.

It was agreed that the invitation to South Eastern Trains to attend the meeting as well should be held open.

RESOLVED:   That the work programme be noted.

To scrutinise the responses to the Key Questions set by the Committee.

The Chairman welcomed the Head of Regeneration and Development and the Head of Legal Services to answer the Key Questions previously set by the Committee and advised that with the consent of members of the Committee, which was duly granted, she would let members of the public present ask follow-up questions in respect of Lydden Racing Circuit and other enforcement matters during proceedings.

Q1.    How are planning applications allocated to officers?   

The Head of Regeneration and Development advised that this was determined on a case-by-case basis with consideration given to the complexity of the application, whether an officer had experience of a particular site or the type of development and their caseload.

In response to concerns raised that the number of part-time officers was delaying the progress of applications, and in particular larger applications, the Head of Regeneration and Development advised that nationally and locally there were difficulties in recruiting planning officers and some applicants only wanted to undertake part-time work. This was partly attributed to a historic cut back in the number of university places that was filtering through and a loss of some officers to the private sector. It was emphasised that the difficulties in recruiting officers was not due to not having the necessary resources but rather in the difficulty in getting applicants to apply for vacancies.

A private sector contractor panel had been set-up in an attempt to alleviate the difficulty in recruiting new officers and these were suitable for use with most applications as they could agree a charge on a case-by-case basis. In addition, steps were being taken to develop officers in-house, although this required experienced officers to give up time for mentoring activities that they could be spending dealing with applications.

Councillor L A Keen asked for the percentage of applications dealt with by contractors, the number of trainees and a copy of the manpower plan for the planning section. The Head of Regeneration and Development advised that he would need to gather this information and provide it to members subsequent to the meeting.

Q2.    Once a condition has been applied what process, if any, is in place to remind officers that they need to be implemented?

Members were advised that the onus was with applicants to ensure that the complied with conditions.

Prior to two years ago, it would have been for the original case officer to deal with conditions after a planning application was approved. However, following an audit review it was recommended that the post of conditions officer be created. The conditions officer monitored those conditions that required further action and sent reminders to the applicant. The new conditions officer also freed up planning officers to deal with new applications and the system was working well.

Councillor T A Bond stated that he believed that the members of the Planning Committee expected conditions to be proactively monitored to ensure implementation and he proposed that a system be created to ensure that every condition is implemented correctly as per the permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.