![More to come
• Resources
• Investment
[need more testing]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/improvingplanningservices-150313062313-conversion-gate01/85/Improving-planning-services-35-320.jpg)
![Is it getting busier ? [yes]
Council 1
Council 2
Council 3
Council 4
Council 5
Council 6](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/improvingplanningservices-150313062313-conversion-gate01/85/Improving-planning-services-36-320.jpg)
Improving planning services
- 1. Improving Planning Services PAS Spring Conference 2015 Martin Hutchings, Toby Hamilton Date: March 2015 www.pas.gov.uk
- 2. this session “the pre-requisites for improvement” 1. Understand what is happening 2. Use a sensible approach to changing things 3. Measure the things that help you understand and act
- 3. Presentation and discussion • Part 1 – Understanding what’s really happening in our planning services? Tea / Coffee • Part 2 – Rethinking Planning (revolutionising ways of working for our customers)
- 4. Part 1 What is really happening in planning services?
- 5. Benchmark roundup – why bother? • Benchmarking since 2009 – 276 councils participated, many more than once – Confidential, but valuable dataset • Publish aggregate as a “state of the nation” – Before we forget – for future benefit
- 6. What we’ll cover • Costs and subsidy of planning • Fees • Productivity • Customer survey • Planning Quality Framework
- 7. What do councils spend the money on?
- 9. Percentage of LPA cost not covered by fees and income • Each vertical line represents a different LPA • Average subsidy = almost 70% (at the time)
- 10. Cost per hour Average cost per person per productive hour Work type 2011 2012/13 Combined Planning applications (direct) £48 £48 £48 Planning applications (other) £40 £40 £40 Compliance work - enforcement etc. £41 £41 £41 Strategic Planning £51 £55 £52 All planning activities £46 £46 £46 - Productive hourly rate = £46 - Compare this with pre-app charges (!)
- 11. Majors = profit. Avoid conditions! Application count Cost of processing per app Fee per app at time of benchmark % not covered by fee Major non residential 2170 2886 6251 -117% All dwellings 14166 1668 1294 22% Minor non residential 21288 794 410 48% Householders 48020 408 131 68% Heritage 12006 450 2 100% All waste 210 6292 2604 59% All minerals 191 2411 2248 7% All others 48817 392 158 60% Conditions 12781 270 92 66% All app types 159649 602 356 41%
- 12. Productivity • “We are not updating the 150 cases per officer thing”
- 13. Productivity • “We are not updating the 150 cases per officer thing” – In the end, we have (sort of)
- 14. Caseload = 144 / case officer
- 15. Productivity revisited • In 2002, it was professional case officer + admin types. Now less differentiation. • Not cases per DC officer, but cases per person – Derives total head count – In the ODPM study, this was “less than 100”
- 16. All-in figure is 88 cases per person
- 17. All-in figure is 88 cases per person
- 18. Why is there such a difference?
- 19. Work mix – high numbers of simple applications. Fast track.
- 20. Size seems to make some difference Large authorities = often higher productivity
- 21. Customers • In aggregate there were clear messages – Talk to us, generally. It’s just manners. – Talk to us *especially* when there are issues – Let us amend – Councils (generally) fail on customer care • We fail because we don’t communicate and follow a target culture
- 22. Reflections on the old benchmark results • One size does not fit all • National indicators hide almost everything about performance • Subsidy represents a risk to development • Communication is often weak
- 24. The real performance ‘story’ • Facts; real-time data on planning applications. • Opinion; what customers say about the planning service • Practice: how the service is delivered and goes about negotiating the best developments and outcomes
- 25. The real performance story • More focused on customers • Internal management tool / external ‘declaration’ • Not annual snapshot, but a continuous process • Benchmark and compare • No ‘start’ date – just get going • External ‘badge’ of quality
- 26. Your work profile Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 • Variety • Benchmarking • Data integrity
- 27. Your fee profile Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 • Variety • Income • Improvement focus • Risk
- 28. Outcomes – approvals Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 • Trends • Messages • Differences
- 29. Withdrawn applications Value Vs Non-value Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 • Waste • Trend – positive/negative • Cost: work + free go • Message to community
- 30. No fee (exc. heritage & trees) Value Vs Non-value Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6
- 31. Process performance Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6 Valid on receipt • Avoidable time/cost • Is it you or them? • Application type
- 32. Customer or Target-driven? Process performance
- 33. Box Plots Most (50%) of the data median Upper 25% Lower 25% Average
- 34. Customer or Target-driven? Process performance GOOD Decisions asap BAD Last minute
- 35. More to come • Resources • Investment [need more testing]
- 36. Is it getting busier ? [yes] Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6
- 37. Development value in our place = £60m/yr Council 1 Council 2 Council 3 Council 4 Council 5 Council 6
- 38. Customer Surveys • Agents, Applicants, Neighbours, Peers • Staff, councillors, amenities • Tied to an individual application • Help, Time, Information, Straightforward.
- 39. Customer Surveys • “We may be slow, but we offer a quality service” – This allows you to test, prove • Same questions nation-wide • Early days
- 40. survey results Application Ref: HA/FUL/4456/14
- 41. Q: how many expensive process reviews focus on speeding things up but fail to notice that the service says ‘yes’ more often than its peers, creates less waste and has happier customers? PQF = the real performance story
- 42. “PAS Planning Quality Framework = consistent, relevant information to benchmark performance” (p12):
- 43. Solution in search of a problem ? • Purpose • Routine • Value • Or do something else … • Use it or lose it ?
- 44. Part 2 Rethinking Planning (revolutionising ways of working for our customers)
- 47. EVERY GROUP YOU’VE EVER WORKED WITH Time with peers Away from the day job Easy-to-implement ideas Time with peers Away from the day job Easy-to-implement ideas
- 48. Project plans Wide ranging Big bang Project plans Wide ranging Big bang
- 49. Start here
- 51. What we’re learning from other disciplines • Start with the customer, purpose • Understand how everything relates • Re-think the ‘why?’ not just ‘what?’ & ‘how?’ • Experiment ‘in the work’ • Avoid too much change at once • Test, learn, change as you go (forever)
- 52. A Revolution in Planning Nick Smith Cheshire West & Cheshire
- 53. Performing well against the national targets but felt we could do better for customers. We had seen Case Studies of how some authorities had improved their planning service by designing it around their customers. Volunteered for the Planning Advisory Service project pilot in July 2014. The purpose of this presentation is to show you what we have achieved since that time and see what you think. Introduction
- 54. Planning decisions by number of days (March 2014-September 2014) 8 weeks Time – March 2014 to September 2014 Numberofdays
- 55. Current case load (per Officer at any one time)
- 56. ‘As is’ process
- 57. ‘As is’ process Pre-app phone Formal pre-app Consultations Planning application Discharge of conditions Committee? Appeals?
- 58. Systems thinking diagrams
- 59. To enable the best development without delay Purpose
- 64. 1. Can I build? 2. Appraise it 3. Get the information you need (to make a decision) 4. Tell the customer they can do it (or why they can’t) Method Value adding steps that help us to enable the best development without delay
- 65. Tested 77 householder applications (as of 23/2/2015) Issued 30 householder planning permissions Average number of days from first contact to decision being issued for householder applications was 59 days (2014) and with experiment is now 29 days Agents/applicants are more open to negotiation to improve schemes Results so far…
- 66. “From submitting the application via the Planning Portal to registration with the LPA, the process was quick and efficient. It was refreshing to receive feedback on the application at the start of the planning process and not the end which is usually the case with other LPA's, leaving little or no time to make any required amendments. Overall, we could not be happier with the process”
- 67. “It gives us as agents maximum chance to help resolve queries or respond to suggestions”
- 68. This is absolutely fabulous - my Client will be extremely pleased at the speed and efficiency with which this has been dealt with.
- 69. I can't believe you are calling so quickly - you are obviously not Cheshire East! Direct quote from Michael Gore (MEG Design)
- 70. I wish a few more local authorities were as helpful and informative as yours, I was very impressed. (I submit applications across the UK).
- 71. Next steps Test more applications of different type and size Introduce more Officers to the method (whilst minimising the disruption to the old system) Keep learning! Looking at opportunities for integration with the Joint Venture project over the coming months
- 72. Shorter end-to-end times Happier customers Staff morale Focusing on one application at a time means improved quality of decision making Benefits
- 73. Freeing up capacity to support you Having a named Planning Officer who is aware of the application and the issues from the start Happier constituents means fewer complaints Better quality decision making – improves local environment Benefits for Members
- 74. There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all Peter Drucker Any questions?