To discuss the Council’s use of consultants with the Heads of Planning Services, Law, Property & Governance and the Executive Councillor for Planning Strategy & Transportation.
Minutes:
(Councillor D B Dew, Executive Councillor for Planning Strategy & Transportation was in attendance for this item).
The Chairman welcomed Councillor D B Dew, Executive Councillor for Planning Strategy and Transportation and Mr S Ingram, Head of Planning Services, who had been invited to the meeting to discuss the use of consultants by Planning Services.
By way of introduction, Councillor Dew informed the Panel that in recognition of the Division’s significant expenditure on consultants and likely changes to future funding arrangements, a discussion paper had been prepared earlier in the year for consideration at a meeting of Executive Councillors, the Chief Executive and Directors. Councillor Dew explained that the District Council, in its role as the Local Planning Authority, had statutory duties imposed upon it to prepare a Development Plan for the District and to deal with all planning proposals, all types of applications, other forms of proposals and all related appeals or other challenges against the decisions of the Council. Because of the wide range of the potential work areas involved and the inherent complexity of many of the areas, those working in Planning required particular expertise. It was an area where the applicable legislation required decisions to be supported by sound evidence and they could be subject to challenge via appeal or other channels. It was for these reasons that the service needed to make appropriate use of various, targeted consultancy inputs.
Attention was then drawn to the work which was undertaken by expert consultants on behalf of the Planning Services Division. Members were informed that consultants were used primarily to provide the Council with the information needed to underpin its strategic plans, to assess and determine planning proposals and to argue the Council’s case at appeals. The range of work undertaken extended to those areas in which the Council did not have the necessary ‘in-house’ experience or expertise and included:-
§ the production of an extensive range of evidence required to support the production of Development Plan documents;
§ the undertaking of Environmental Impact Assessment Audits;
§ independent and expert scrutiny of planning application information; and
§ helping to sustain and uphold the Council’s position in respect of planning and other appeals.
Councillor Dew explained that the Planning Services base budget contained limited provision of £203,000 for the retention of consultants. In addition, it was an established principle that planning fees received in respect of a large and complex application could be used to help meet the costs associated with determining that particular proposal. Although the 2009/10 figures for expenditure indicated that Planning Services had spent £710,000 on consultants, the success of the Council in bidding for monies from Cambridgeshire Horizons and similar bodies meant that only £235,000 of consultancy costs were directly funded from the base budget.
The Panel were advised of the process through which consultants were employed by the Planning Division and noted that such employment only occurred when it was considered that their use would be advantageous to the Council’s position. Legal assistance was typically based on long standing and well established working relationships with Chambers. All consultancy inputs were appropriately managed within the applicable case or project management frameworks by relevant Officers and colleagues in Law, Property and Governance. During consideration of alternative options to the use of consultants, the risks associated with all cases were assessed and the necessity for targeted consultancy inputs determined. An input from an external consultant was only sought when it was considered that it would address a deficit in the experience and skills base of the Division.
By way of conclusion, Councillor Dew re-iterated that the Council was committed to dealing with planning and development matters in a professional way. The processes involved would continue to require appropriate targeted consultancy inputs; however, it was recognised that the availability of previously exploited external funding sources would be reduced and a consequential reduction was expected in the overall amount that was spent on consultants. Planning Services would continue to scrutinise all it’s proposed consultancy spending in order to ensure that it represented the most appropriate and expedient way of proceeding.
To support the presentation by the Executive Councillor, the Head of Planning Services explained that the work undertaken by the Planning Services Division was by its nature cyclical and a key issue for the Division was to ensure that requirements to complete strategic work were anticipated and planned for. He referred to the preparation of the Core Strategy which had generated significant costs because of the requirement for it to incorporate specific evidence bases from experts in the field. He also reminded Members that the implications and requirements for Local Authorities of the Localism Bill were not yet known.
Having thanked the Executive Councillor for the information he had provided, Members discussed the classification of expenditure within financial reports. It was suggested that some of the expenditure on consultants might be better classified as legal services and a request was made for a further breakdown of the types of employment the budgets covered.
In response to a question about the procedures in place for authorizing the use of consultants and monitoring their performance and associated expenditure, the Head of Planning Services informed Members that the employment of any consultant needed to be approved by the Planning Management Group. The Group were aware of the requirements of the service and the skills of the relevant teams. The Panel also noted that best practice procedures, professional judgements and project management techniques were used when consultants were employed. The Head of Planning Services explained that the outcome of an appeal case was not measured simply on whether it was won or lost. Success could also be gauged by the award of costs. The Panel noted that it was rare for the costs of a planning appeal to be awarded against the Council.
The Panel discussed the likely reduction in the availability of external funding to employ planning consultants, the way in which the shortfall might be met in future years and whether the criteria for planning appeals would need to be modified in light of the availability of funding. The Executive Councillor explained that the intentions of the Coalition Government with regard to funding for the current planning cycle were not yet known and that the Council would be required to make value judgements on future appeal cases. Members were also advised that the Executive Councillor met regularly with Planning Officers and that emerging issues would be brought to Members’ attention. A report detailing the outcome of recent appeal decisions was submitted to the Development Management Panel on a monthly basis.
The Panel discussed the potential scope for sharing expert consultancy services with other authorities. The Head of Planning Services expressed the view that, in the past, use had been made of the same counsel as South Cambridgeshire District Council because he was already familiar with the planning issues affecting the immediate area. However, in general the scope for sharing consultants was limited, particularly if an application was submitted on a border area where the Authorities in question could have a difference of opinion on the issue. There had, however, previously been a joint approach, for example, to archaeology.
In concluding their deliberations, the Panel requested a more detailed breakdown of the Planning Division’s expenditure on consultants. The Head of Financial Services also stated that, in light of the Panel’s discussions, he would prepare a note for consideration by the Working Party which had been established at the previous meeting.