This document summarizes a presentation given at the PAS Spring Conference in 2015 on improving planning services. It discusses benchmarking data that shows the average cost per planning application is £46 per hour but fees often do not cover costs, leading to an average subsidy of 70%. Productivity is estimated at 88 cases per officer. It also discusses using a Planning Quality Framework to provide more relevant performance data to customers. The second part of the presentation discusses an experiment in Cheshire West and Cheshire to redesign their planning process around customer needs, leading to faster application times of 29 days on average for householders. Customer feedback on the new approach was very positive.
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)
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
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%
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”
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
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
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
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
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?