Planning peer challenge 2024

The following sections set out the findings of the peer challenge, including an analysis of strengths and areas for improvement. In line with the peer review process, findings are structured around each of the five key themes considered in a review.

5.1 Vision and leadership

5.1.1 Members and officers are clear in wanting the best for the council and for its communities. There is a good understanding of the borough and communities' needs, including net population decline, pressure and demand on all types of housing including the availability of affordable homes for sale and rent; and the need for good quality jobs which meet people's needs and aspirations. They also recognise the value of Gateshead's green spaces and its heritage.

5.1.2 At the most senior officer levels connections are made between the Corporate Plan, the Planning Service and the Local Plan and the potential for the new Local Plan. However, this is more difficult to see at middle and front-line staff levels where there feels to be a lack of clarity about the council's ambitions. There is also a lack of recognition about where planning can make a contribution to the financial sustainability of the council. This also presents an opportunity to explore synergy at the highest levels across the council, with the Planning Service. The council should establish a formal structure/reporting between the council at the corporate level and the LPA to shape the new Local Plan as well as and enhance delivery of the council's Corporate Plan.

5.1.3 A key issue which impacts on this synergy is a lack of clarity about the council's strategic intent for growth across the borough. Members and officers recognise the many tensions that development in Gateshead presents, but also that working more closely with neighbouring councils and the Combined Authority also bring opportunities for the borough's residents, businesses and potential inward investors. Stakeholders, both internal and external, are not clear on the role the council wants to play in the region's economy, yet they need this in order to begin to plan how and where they can contribute. At the most strategic officer and political levels wider conversations are needed to bring some clarity to some of these big issues and allow them to join up. Services need this steer so ideas can be developed, as well as enabling them to plan ahead with confidence. This includes a range of services and is wider than the Planning Service, as well as being important for the shaping of the new Local Plan.

5.1.4 There are a wide number of major projects under discussion, but these need careful consideration in order to ensure capacity matches delivery, and so that senior members' and officers' expectations can be met, and the Planning Service lined up to deliver. A robust prioritisation exercise is needed which matches ambition, resources, capacity and delivery. In common with other councils, Gateshead is under pressure to maximise income opportunities but there appears to be a mismatch between the service's income targets and its ability to achieve these. The PAS guidance outlines a strong role for Development Managers in achieving prudent financial management of the service and consideration should be given to how more realism can be introduced, so that income targets are stretching but also reflect the reality of service delivery. Read the PAS guidance. (PDF, 199 KB)(opens new window)

5.1.5 Overall there is a sense of the council waiting for a number of things to happen: The council's current Chief Executive leaves the authority after the May 2024 local elections; the Strategic Director of Economy, Innovation and Growth (the lead Director for the Planning Service) retired the week after this peer challenge; the new Combined Authority means a bigger and different role for the council which will directly impact on the Planning Service; and the new Local Plan process is underway. All of these contribute to a feeling of uncertainty about developing plans for the future.

5.1.6 Of these plans, the Local Plan is hugely significant for the Planning Service and the council. Officers need to be clear and confident about the potential options for, and their professional recommendations for how the Local Plan should be produced and if that is to be undertaken jointly with another authority such as Newcastle City Council or the council producing its own. The recommendations should be put to the councils' respective officer and political leadership bodies for a decision. Whatever option is recommended, there is the potential for sharing of resource, which is particularly important during a time of reduced public sector resources and the need to avoid duplication of work. A high-level strategic vision is also needed, so that officers can work on the content with a degree of confidence that they will meet members' expectations.

5.2 Performance and management

5.2.1 There are positive and constructive working relationships between councillors and officers at the council, and between officers within and beyond the Planning Service. People are supportive of each other and of their roles, and there is widespread commitment to the service, and evident enthusiasm for ongoing service improvement and delivery. This camaraderie from colleagues can be seen across the services that work with the Planning Service too. We heard the service described as a 'breath of fresh air'.

5.2.2 The Chair of the Planning Committee is widely respected for his leadership and knowledge of the service and subject matter. His chairing of the committee meetings is inclusive and welcoming, both of members of the public, and with council officers.

5.2.3 Councillors speak highly of staff across the Planning Service, and staff reflect that members are supportive of the service, with both elements feeling able to appropriately challenge each other. Both members and officers feel they work together in a way which is respectful and gives everyone the opportunity to share their views in a collegiate way.

5.2.4 Councillors feel that their induction as newcomers to the Planning Committee gives them a really good grounding in what they need to know. More widely they feel they receive good support from officers and feel informed about the challenges and opportunities facing the Planning Service at Gateshead Council. From what we heard it appears committee training on various topics may be slightly ad hoc and so the council may wish to consider whether this needs to be formalised or regularised to ensure Committee members are fully up to speed on the key issues.

5.2.5 Visible and inclusive officer leadership was observed by the peer team. There are consistent views about the approachability of the service leadership and the support given to everyone working together and problem solving. There is also an ethos of improvement and the service's senior managers are open to change. Staff describe being able to share their views and ideas frankly in a supportive and professional environment.

5.2.6 In 2019 Development Management performance was good, with the overall speed of decisions at 93%, based on Majors at 100%, Minors at 90% and Other at 94%. The service acknowledges that Extension of Time (EOT) agreements mask the true length of time to make decisions for minor applications, and it will be a challenge to improve the speed of decision making if the government follows through on its intention to remove EOTs. A new process of validation was piloted in summer 2023 and this reduced the average time taken to go from received to valid to 20 days.

5.2.7 Legal Service support to the Planning Service comprises 1.5FTE for both planning and enforcement advice. This includes providing S.106 advice. The peer team heard widespread feedback of how stretched this support is, as well as concerns that future large-scale investment and regeneration projects will require further expertise. Once members clarify their overall strategic ambitions for the borough through the Local Plan and NECA, consideration should be given to whether support services such as legal advice will be sufficient for the Planning Service to deliver.

5.2.8 Recruitment and retention of staff has improved since the end of the Covid pandemic, although there has been a large turnover of staff. During 2021 and 2022 external capacity was bought in by using consultants. Capacity however remains an issue, and it will be important to keep an ongoing eye on ensuring resources are lined up to deliver priorities.

5.2.9 Planning Enforcement is undertaken as part of a wider council enforcement service which includes waste and environmental health. During the Covid pandemic planning enforcement activities were suspended as the council focused on other enforcement matters. The current broad focus on performance is on waste and fly tipping enforcement. The council has also struggled to recruit people with sufficient planning knowledge and has relied on a temporary consultant to provide input. Officers are unclear whether or not planning enforcement is a priority for members, relative to the council's other enforcement obligations and activities; looking from outside planning enforcement appears to be a low priority. There are also concerns about whether enforcement activities would be better housed within the Planning Service, where technical advice is more readily on hand and where the function could feel less 'lost' and less overshadowed by other enforcement priorities. If it is a priority, then consideration should be given to a new approach and profile, where it is located, how it is supported, and how it can be resourced so that it can deliver more effectively.

5.2.10 The service applies high expectations and standards to developments. This is part of the service's clear commitment to quality and ensuring they achieve the best for Gateshead. However, this is delivered at a cost: applications can be slow to progress and there is heavy reliance on Extension of Time (EOT) agreements. The peer team heard of widespread concerns inside and outside the council about the length of time some applications can take to reach a decision.

5.2.11 In 2019 Development Management performance was good, with the overall speed of decisions at 93%, based on Majors at 100%, Minors at 90% and Other at 94%. The service acknowledges that Extension of Time (EOT) agreements mask the true length of time to make decisions for minor applications, and it will be a challenge to improve the speed of decision making if the government follows through on its intention to remove EOTs. A new process of validation was piloted in summer 2023 and this reduced the average time taken to go from received to valid to 20 days.

5.2.12 There are concerns that the quality of applications can be below the standard expected as the service steps in to add value to the applications it receives, thus putting some of the onus and cost onto the LPA rather than the developer. We heard this described as "papering over the cracks". Whilst partnership working to achieve a satisfactory solution is encouraged, going too far on this gives the impression that the council can be risk averse. Staff expressed a clear appetite for the council to be more challenging with developers and in doing so, be more willing to turn down applications, take more risks and refuse applications much earlier. A number of commentators felt that the council should be more assertive whilst also accepting that this may result in an increase in appeals. Giving some more autonomy and trust to officers and team managers to do this would help ensure this approach is handled appropriately.

5.2.13 Whilst willingness to approve quality applications is undoubtedly a good thing, it means that the service is using its own stretched resources to boost the quality of those applications. It could use the council's own planning applications as a testbed to explore and set the standards for applications. It was heard that the council's own / partnership applications did not have their own planning advisors on the developer/client-side and this should be rectified as quickly as possible for future applications so that the work does not just land on the LPA side. In doing so, staff and managers will need to be more willing to push back on applications where quality is perceived to not meet the standard required, and to be more rigorous in doing so.

5.2.14 Taking a new approach to risk could also extend to the service's approach to free advice. This currently appears to be extensive and whilst it reflects the service's willingness to be helpful, it also means it undermines the opportunities to maximise income generation. There is scope to be more hard-nosed and commercially minded about the limits of free advice, as part of a broader permission and willingness to be more challenging with developers. This can particularly be the case if developers have largely not taken pre-application advice. Developers expressed that if they receive timely and quality advice, and planners are trusted to come to a holistic view (considering consultee advice in the round), they would be willing to pay more for it.

5.2.15 In early May 2024 the government's consultation closes for an Accelerated Planning System. During this peer challenge, these proposals were out to consultation. The council needs to prepare to change its approach to ensure it will meet the new requirements, which are expected for delivery from autumn 2024. These are expected to include:

• introducing a new Accelerated Planning Service for major commercial applications with a decision time in 10 weeks and fee refunds if this is not met
• changing the use of extensions of time, including ending their use for householder applications and only allowing one extension of time for other developments. This links to a proposed new performance measure for local planning authority speed of decision-making against statutory time limits

5.2.16 Regardless of whether the government actually introduces these proposed changes, the service needs to review its approach to pre-application and application processes anyway. It would be beneficial to review the overall appetite for risk at the same time, so that a new approach reflects both the anticipated national requirements, as well as the degree of robustness that the service wants to achieve. There are good examples of quality pragmatic advice in the development management service such as the 'week 5' review, Red Amber Green (RAG) ratings, fortnightly meetings on strategic applications, bespoke pre-application advice and the 'officer design review' service. This work should continue and ensure all key people are in the loop on these processes and milestones. At the same time, some officers were not aware of some of the good practice work going on, such as the PAS DM Challenge Toolkit and Priorities Actions List, so it is important this is widely shared and implemented.

5.2.17 Whilst there is a good and positive working culture within the Planning Service, this could be further developed by considering where people are located within the physical office space. During conversations that the peer team had with staff it was clear that some service colleagues do not know each other as well as might be expected (including between planning policy and development management), sometimes to the extent of not knowing what people's roles are or the projects they are working on, despite their desks being on the same floor of the Civic Centre, sometimes as close as being around the corner of the office. Moving people around can be unsettling and feel controversial so needs to be handled well. It can achieve positive benefits by helping to facilitate dialogue, interaction and learning which isn't happening now.

5.2.18 Some members of staff felt that the overall approach to ICT and facilities does not yet support them to be as customer focused as they would like to be. They have frustrations for example about the sound-proofing of meeting rooms within the Civic Centre particularly when dealing with sensitive or confidential matters; some ICT equipment doesn't enable people to use headphones which could filter out noise when talking to customers; and whether the building's overall access arrangements for customers enable them to get the information they need.

5.2.19 Working relationships can also be developed further. The council has been encouraging staff to return to the office for two days per week. The frequency of one-to-one conversations, appraisal processes and team meetings seems to be variable across teams within the service, with some happening regularly and others much more sparsely, if at all. Better dialogue and common understanding can be nurtured through face-to-face team meetings. This principle also applies to key meetings with developers, which should also be face to face rather than remotely; this has the potential to make more progress, more quickly, if everyone is in a room together, and to build up working relationships with key stakeholders. The 'plan:net' initiative for different officers and teams to present on a topic and network sounds very positive and should be encouraged.

5.2.20 We heard from the industry that in some cases there needs to be some more realism and pragmatism regarding the market and how quickly (or not) some large sites could get developed. This would have implications on whether other sites need to be freed up sooner to ensure that the council keeps on top of its housing delivery target.

5.3 Community engagement

5.3.1 The peer challenge team saw good examples of the Planning Service working well with others to improve how it engages with communities. Close working with the council's public health team led to the development of one of the first Supplementary Planning Documents in the country for hot food and takeaways, published in June 2015. Delivering supported housing units and transport planning are good examples of where the service has worked collaboratively, with internal and external stakeholders.

5.3.2 The council has been proactive in securing Government funding for digital planning and developing its approach to this. In particular, the council is has some good examples of utilising interactive webpages for documents and consultations rather than static and inaccessible PDF documents. This improves accessibility and can reach a wider audience which should be commended. Exploring Power BI and the imminent go-live of 'Plan X' is also impressive.

5.3.3 There are further good examples of engagement such as holding a 'Teams Town Hall' on the Local Plan, using the Youth Parliament, social media, Storyboards, and using well-established relationships with universities and colleges to reach students. Work with universities and colleges has included their attendance at public Planning Committee meetings.

5.3.4 There are mixed views about how well the service engages with its residents. The peer team met with a group of residents, some of whom had direct experience of the service, and some who did not. Some participants felt that the service has been unwilling to listen to their concerns, and that the overall approach to development management has left them feeling marginalised. Refreshing the Statement of Community Involvement, with direct input from such residents, needs to be undertaken so there is some consensus on how and when they should be engaged.

5.3.5 The council's website was found by some residents to be difficult to navigate, particularly if people are trying to access information through smartphones or tablets. They would also welcome the publication of delegated decisions. They also expressed concerns about how to preserve green fields, and the suitability of some brownfield sites for both economic and housing developments.

5.3.6 At the council-wide level there is a clear push on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) and this is reflected heavily in the Corporate Plan. Visibility of EDI matters because the service needs to reflect the communities it serves but we did not see much evidence of this being consciously championed with Planning Service staff, or in the service's community engagement. The Royal Town Planning Institute and other bodies have some resources to support developing EDI in a planning service, and there will no doubt be expertise within the wider council to support this. The service should set out how it will meet the Corporate Plan's push for EDI both within the service and how it engages with local communities. The latter could be done through an update to the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).

5.3.7 Notwithstanding that planning and development control is subject to various legal terms and terminology, residents told us the service could do more to promote plain English for key documents and for planning matters on the council's website.

5.3.8 The service can build on its current approach by learning from and building on good practice on engagement already in existence elsewhere in the council and beyond. Public health is a good example of this, for which the council has as good reputation, and seems to have been able reach seldom-heard groups. Other councils and their Planning Services will have examples they can also share.

5.4 Partnership engagement

5.4.1 The newly created North East Combined Authority brings opportunities both within and beyond Gateshead's boundary. Stakeholders feel the borough and its economy is well placed to add value in the north east. However, it is less clear to stakeholders how the council will position itself both with neighbouring councils and the Combined Authority to maximise the potential gains to the borough, nor what the processes involved are in influencing NECA.

5.4.2 Partnership working is high on the service's agenda and there is a recognition that the council cannot deliver its overall objectives without collaboration and collective understanding with developers. However, there is a degree of an 'us and them' perception between developers and the council. Some of this appears to relate to an overall lack of understanding about what the council is trying to achieve, and where planning fits into this vision. Is the borough's priority about developing its infrastructure, or about creating more homes for local people, or aiming to be a key driver of economic growth for the region, or something else? At these highest levels, its intentions are unclear. Taking time to broaden the dialogue between the council and a wider range of external voices as well as having some strategic discussions will aid better understanding of the council's intentions and what the market can offer Gateshead. The service should consider establishing more regular and wider-ranging 'developer forum' meetings with key developers and agents to hear feedback on the service, contribute to the Local Plan and build relationships with developers so there is collective understanding of what the council is trying to achieve and what the market is prepared to deliver. A better understanding on both sides of what officers and developers are trying to achieve would go a long way to establishing some common ground.

5.4.3 Conscious efforts are made to work with applicants throughout the application process, and to offer widespread free advice. This approach has been based on the council wanting to be as helpful as it can be, reduce risk and improve the quality of development proposals. Some stakeholders feel the council has a good reputation for being helpful and facilitating development. There are few appeals against decisions as over the past three years 95% of applications were granted.

5.4.4 However, in doing so, the overall approach has inadvertently created other issues. Firstly, the speed of decision making can be very slow and the peer team heard of widespread frustration externally from developers as well as from some councillors and internal council staff that the development management processes can take too long. This may make Gateshead inadvertently more difficult to deal with than its neighbours, despite its best intentions. It also means that applicants have a degree of surety that the applications they submit will eventually get approval. Whether or not this leads to quality applications being made is unclear, because the council's willingness to support applications means that the quality of submissions does not have to be as good as it can be, because the council appears to step in to advise on quality.

5.4.5 There are good examples of cross-borough working on various climate, environmental, biodiversity, flooding, public health, design and evidence base documents which is very welcome, and a good track record of delivering a joint Local Plan with Newcastle in the past. The council should build on this collaboration and take it to the next level in scoping out how statutory Local Plans, or at least the supporting work, could be worked on jointly and resources shared.

5.4.6 The service has been successful in bidding for and receiving government grants to improve its approach to digital working through DLUHC's Planning Software Improvement Fund. This allocated a £300,000 grant to trial and test new software. The aim is to revolutionise how customers and staff use the planning system, encouraging a self-service approach which is backed by learning, different use of resources and artificial intelligence. It has also enabled new data skills and intelligence to join existing service expertise. The overall approach is energetic and officers are optimistic of broader benefits and application beyond the Planning Service.

5.4.7 The Planning Team has established strong working relationships with local universities across a range of initiatives which bring in new thinking to the service, as well as providing opportunities for young people to develop their experience of live planning matters. These include:

• student placement opportunities for both planning policy and development management
• student consultancy projects which provide students with experience as well as insight for the council, on issues including accessible housing, hot food takeaways
• joint bids for research
• guest lecturing from service managers, and
• using live projects for study tours

5.4.8 Across partners there appears to be a great deal of anticipation of what the new Local Plan will do in creating a new vision for development in Gateshead. There is however a lack of understanding about how long the plan will take to be finalised, and what will happen in the interim, as the Local Plan may be at least four years away from approval.

5.4.9 There is an appetite for more visibility of key individuals at both political and managerial levels within the council, and how to access them for high level, non-prejudicial conversations about Gateshead. Consideration should be given to how best to bring about some strategic discussions which enable external partners to better understand what the council wants to achieve. Members have a crucial and leading role to play in those strategic discussions and engagement.

5.5 Achieving outcomes

5.5.1 The council has a stated ambition of achieving net zero by 2030. Its Climate Team is housed within the wider Planning Service and has responsibility for the council's overall climate strategy and how it is being delivered, including delivering compulsory climate training for all staff. The resource allocated to it is relatively small, but the team is punching above its weight, this has been recognised externally with a 'highly commended' ranking at the Municipal Journal's awards in 2023 for the council's climate change strategy. In 2022 it was recognised for its achievements on carbon reduction by the national Investors in the Environment awards. The latter recognised how the council's energy team has innovated through a range of projects including the district heating scheme providing green energy to all public buildings in Gateshead's town centre, including the Civic Centre and council-owned residential blocks. This is based on four sites producing 4 megawatts of solar electricity, including solar voltaic panels at the council's main offices, as well as at the Baltic Quarter.

5.5.2 There are concerns about how the Climate Team as well as other resources within the Planning Service are planned for. Austerity has had an impact on recruitment generally; Gateshead is not uncommon in experiencing this. The council's approach to single year budgeting has made it difficult to recruit to posts due to the lack of long-term certainty for potential applicants. Staff also feel that resources are too thinly stretched in some areas for the Planning Service to meet the council's expectations of it, especially in achieving high level ambitions such as its large-scale regeneration and housing projects, and in for supporting services including legal and enforcement functions.

5.5.3 The issues and options stage of the new Local Plan has been completed, with the council working with Urban Intelligence and their Placemaker digital platform. The updated Local Development Scheme was published in 2023.

5.5.4 The first phase of public realm and heritage improvements have been delivered to improve links from Newcastle to the convention quarter. This is very welcome and shows that incremental projects are helping to achieve a wider strategy for the area through planning and project management.

5.5.5 A prioritised list of major projects would bring clarity and focus across the council. There are a number of large scale and significant schemes underway which will consume extensive amounts of resources as well as headspace, and these need to be carefully planned for and managed, for example:

• The MetroGreen project aims to create new housing, commercial and leisure facilities on former brownfield land near the Metrocentre
• There are ambitious plans for Gateshead Quays including a new arena, conference centre and exhibition facilities to the 10-acre site
• Housing, employment and mixed-use developments on surrounding sites, with transport and sustainability improvements.

5.5.6 There are many opportunities underway which the council can use to its advantage for the benefit of residents, communities and the local economy. It needs to articulate how it will take advantage of those opportunities, the role it expects to play, and what it wants to achieve. The new Local Plan and the development of the new Combined Authority are key opportunities for change which the council can influence, but in doing so it needs to clarify its ambition, prioritise and line up resources to match its ambition. The Planning Service has a key role to play in shaping and delivering that ambition, but to do so it needs to make faster decisions, take more risks and be more commercial in outlook, as well as getting better at engagement with developers and service users.