On May 12 Frank Tucker, Chairman of the Planning Appraisals Committee and I gave evidence to one of two visiting inspectors from the Audit Commission on the strengths and weaknesses that we perceived in the City Planning Department. Their report has now been published, and can be accessed HERE.

As you’ll see (the summary on Pp 5 & 6 is very useful), and as Frank and I expected, it’s a bit of a curate’s egg of a judgement. The planning service is reckoned to offer only a “fair”, one-star service, with “uncertain” prospects for improvement. On the other hand, staff know what needs to be done, and are judged to be in a fair way to do it.

I feel that this fits in very well with our experience. The new Head of Planning Graham Nelson has now been to meetings of both the Strategic Planning and Transport Committee and the PAC, where he took part in what could fairly be called spirited discussions, and he has our respect and best wishes in his plans to improve his service.

As we have argued in our submission to the Boundary Committee on the Unitary Authority proposals, many of the City Council Planning Department’s weaknesses stem from the fact that Norwich is only a district council, with the lesser powers and finances that go with that status, while it has to grapple with the very complex problems that arise in a community where conservation and the dynamics of growth pull in often conflicting directions.

One point interested me in particular. The Commission recognises that “Councillor capabilities are… inconsistent and training is not well developed”. It is in everybody’s interest that councillors should be well versed in the complexities as well as the possibilities of the City’s planning procedures. Perhaps we could help here? Something on which to ponder.

Alec Hartley
Chairman Strategic Planning and Transport Committee.