Planning site visits questioned
Elected members have questioned the impact of Perth and Kinross Council planning department’s decision to cut the number of site visits it makes.
Councillors recently told officers they had received several complaints after planners made a decision without having visited a site.
The issue was raised as PKC’s scrutiny and performance committee reviewed the latest Planning Performance Framework on Wednesday, February 1.
While the planning department was reported to have performed well, councillors questioned the decision to cut back on site visits.
During the pandemic – when Covid-19 restrictions were in place – officers had to rely on photographic evidence and Google Maps imagery to determine applications.
The report put before the committee said: “Reducing the need to travel helped officers manage their time more effectively and reduced the environmental impact of our service.”
PKC reviewed its approach to site visits and took a general “risk-based” approach to determine the value of a site visit.
Councillor Alasdair Bailey told the committee he had received a number of questions about it from his Carse of Gowrie constituents since Covid.
The Labour elected member asked what criteria was used to determine whether or not to carry out a site visit.
Kristian Smith, a building standards and development management service manager, said: “Very careful consideration is given to the need for a site visit in line with the approach which is published on the Perth and Kinross Council website.”
He added: “There is no legal requirement to undertake a site visit but – as I say – we do this wherever it is necessary.”
Mr Smith said there were “many benefits” in not carrying out site visits every single time.
He also said that the evidence showed “huge” savings “on all fronts” by taking this approach as well as the environmental benefits “by not travelling to all corners of the authority when that is not necessary.”
Mr Smith added: “There are 2000 or so different types of application and the scenario in relation to each is often different. Each is considered on its merits.
“We’ve had many, many, positive comments on the way in which we are undertaking the visits at the minute.”
Convener and independent Strathmore councillor, Colin Stewart, highlighted issues where online tools “were not necessarily up to date”.
He added: “I’m aware of a case that went to the Local Review Body where the street view information was not up to date in terms of the layout of buildings surrounding the applicant’s site.”
Conservative Councillor Keith Allan said he had received complaints as a result of planners not visiting sites.
The Strathallan elected member said: “That is the biggest bane of the planning authority in my area. All the complaints I get are about where decisions have been taken when there has been no site visit.”
Mr Smith said he was “happy to discuss complaints” but they themselves had not received many.
He said: “We have had – I think – over the past three years two complaints over a site visit not being taken and a review of those situations has found there would have been no difference to the outcome.
“Obviously the individuals were unhappy with the decision taken but whether or not there was a site visit does not seem to have affected the decision in any way whatsoever.”
Cllr Bailey said it was “incumbent” on PKC to publish detailed criteria used to reach a decision not to visit a site and “improve transparency”.
He said: “While I appreciate that appropriate diligence goes into the consideration of whether a site visit is needed or not, I do think that it is incumbent upon us to publish the criteria that we use to reach that decision.”
This was put forward by the committee as a recommendation.