Agenda item

To consider the Key Performance Indicators in relation to the Planning service. 

69.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 26-35, which asked Members to consider the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in relation to the planning service.

69.2           The Head of Development Services explained that the Development Services review had been approved at Council in April 2018 and progress against the supporting action plan had been reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in October 2018 where Members had requested that a report on the KPIs for the planning service be brought to the Committee.  The Business Transformation Manager advised that the proposed indicators focused on a number of themes, the first of which related to the validation of planning applications; this was important as it was often the first contact the customer had with the planning team.  The complexity of the process depended upon whether an application was ‘major’ i.e. 10 or more dwellings or 1,000sqm or more, ‘minor’ i.e. one to nine dwellings or less than 1,000sqm, or ‘other’ which were predominantly householder applications but also included advertisement consent, listed building consent or change of use.  Whilst the team was not where it wanted to be in terms of current performance and speed, there had been improvement and a whole suite of actions would ensure that continued.  Page No. 30 related to the speed of decisions on applications which Members would be familiar with as they were presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on a quarterly basis as part of the performance management report.  It should be borne in mind that a national planning performance regime had been introduced in October 2013 in which the government had set minimum standards for the speed and quality of planning decisions on planning applications over a two year rolling period and a local planning authority could be “designated” as underperforming if it did not meet those standards.  If a Council was designated, applicants could apply directly to the Planning Inspectorate for the category of development – major, non-major or both – for which the Council was underperforming.  The threshold for speed of decisions was 60% for major development and 70% for non-major development; as Tewkesbury Borough Council was performing significantly above these thresholds it was recommended that the current local performance indicators - which were divided into major, minor and other - were retained. 

69.3          The Business Transformation Manager explained that the purpose of planning was to achieve the right outcome at the right time and a KPI had been suggested in relation to the number of dwellings and affordable homes permitted which would demonstrate how the authority was contributing to the housing needs of the borough.  In addition, an annual review of Planning Committee decisions was proposed to be undertaken to establish the number of decisions contrary to the Officer recommendation and what issues that might raise, for example, if there was a need for more training, better presentations etc.  It was also proposed to consider the outcome of appeals in line with the requirements of the Protocol for Councillors and Officers Involved in the Planning Process.  Page No. 32 of the report related to appeals and the quality of decision-making which was also part of the government’s criteria for designation as a poorly performing planning authority.  Quality was measured as a proportion of all applications which were refused planning permission but then allowed on appeal.  As with speed of decision, the measures were applied separately to major and non-major applications over a two year rolling period.  The target for decisions on major and non-major applications was for no more than 10% to be allowed on appeal and that was rolled forward each year.  Performance was currently quite good but would need to be monitored going forward.  In terms of applications for costs against the Council if an appeal was upheld, it was felt that the target should be zero as costs were only awarded for unreasonable behaviour.

69.4          In respect of planning enforcement, cases were classed as Category A, B, C or D and KPIs were proposed for each – Category A cases were those where, without prompt action, there was material risk of further harm; Category B cases were those where development was causing, or likely to cause, irreparable harm or damage; Category C cases were those where there was a risk of material harm to the environment or undue harm to residential amenity; and Category D cases were breaches causing limited disturbance to local residents or the environment.  These had been based on what was set out within the Planning Enforcement Plan.  The Business Transformation Manager explained that customer satisfaction within the planning service was often difficult to measure but it was felt that it would be helpful to carry out an annual review of corporate complaints about the service.  In addition, a customer satisfaction survey had been prepared, which would initially be tested on customers of the pre-application service, so there would also be a KPI in relation to that.  Members were advised that the pre-application service – which was discretionary - was being reviewed and additional KPIs would come forward as a result of that.  It was also intended to carry out some work during the next financial year to establish the cost of delivering the planning service.  Once that data had been captured and analysed, it would provide information which was likely to form the basis of further KPIs.

69.5           A Member raised concern that, due to the layout of the report, it was difficult to see at a glance how the Council was currently performing against each of the proposed KPIs.  The Committee had previously agreed that a standard template should be used for performance reports with a smiley face system which he would have liked to see applied here.  With regard to Page No. 28, Paragraphs 2.1.2-2.1.4 of the report, he questioned whether the targets were sensible and realistic – it was common to see improvement quickly from a few easy fixes but this was difficult to sustain in the long term.  The Business Transformation Manager advised that the KPIs had been discussed at length by the team who had been surprised by some of the statistics and keen to improve.  There had been a significant recruitment drive and the planning service was now fully staffed so, whilst challenging, the targets were thought to be achievable.  She explained that the purpose of this report was to ensure that the proposed KPIs were at the right level and performance would be reported using the standard format going forward.  A Member congratulated Officers on the excellent set of targets set out at Page No. 28 – the trajectory in terms of validation of minor applications, from 16.5 days in 2017/18 to 11 days in 2018/19 and a target of seven days for 2019/20, was exactly what the Council should be striving to achieve.

69.6          A Member drew attention to Page No. 31 of the report and the annual review of Planning Committee overturns which he felt was aimed at Members and he questioned whether Case Officers would be considered to establish if there were any patterns in this regard.  The Business Transformation Manager provided assurance that the review was intended to be a qualitative assessment to take stock of where the Committee was and there was a role for both Members and Officers in democratic accountability.  She explained that decisions were quite often finely balanced which was the purpose of having a Planning Committee.  Another Member expressed the view that there was also a need to look at situations where the Committee permitted an application against an Officer recommendation to refuse in order to look for trends and identify training needs.  The Business Transformation Manager undertook to bring a template to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee before it was populated; it was intended to look at a whole financial year so this would be after April 2019.

69.7          A Member noted that a customer satisfaction questionnaire was being carried out in relation to the pre-application service and he felt it would be more appropriate to do this at the end of the planning process as customers may feel differently if they had followed pre-application advice but their application had subsequently been refused.  It would also be important to know if the customer had submitted an application before or if this was their first experience of using the service.  In response, the Business Transformation Manager clarified that the questionnaire was being tested on the pre-application service before being rolled out to all customers; a questionnaire had been drafted for customers who had already had a decision on their planning application which asked whether they had received pre-application advice. 

69.8          With regard to the number of homes delivered, a Member noted that 2,157 dwellings had been granted outline planning permission in 2017/18 and he questioned how many of those had been on appeal.  The Head of Development Services confirmed that this figure included those allowed on appeal and she undertook to find out how many were appeals following the meeting.  Referring to the recent appeal decision where an Inspector had found that the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, a Member questioned how this impacted on other applications which had been refused on that basis.  The Head of Development Services advised that the Council did not agree with the Inspector’s methodology and calculations and was currently taking advice on how to proceed.  In terms of how this would impact on applications that had been refused, she stressed that each application was considered on its own planning merits; the Council’s position was that it was not engaging the paragraph in the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to the five year supply and the development plan being out of date.  In a situation where the Council was forced to concede the issue there were a number of things that could be done in relation to boosting the supply of land through the planning process and making a case that some of the sites the Inspector felt were undeliverable could be delivered, and she clarified that the Planning Policy Team had been working on this already.  In response to a query as to whether the Tewkesbury Borough Plan would now be brought forward as a matter of urgency, the Head of Development Services confirmed that it was always intended to bring the plan forward as soon as possible; however, 450 representations had been received during the consultation which Officers were working through.  Some of the representations, particularly those from statutory consultees, were quite weighty and could potentially require additional work to be undertaken but she provided assurance this would be done as swiftly as possible via the Borough Plan Working Group.  Notwithstanding this, she advised that it was likely to be some months before it became clear what the Plan would look like bearing in mind the complexity of some of the issues.  The Planning Policy Team was small but, if it became apparent there was a resource issue that would have a detrimental impact on the delivery of the plan, that would be flagged up to Members.  She stressed that decisions on the borough plan needed to be made in the soundest way possible, taking on board all of the information and ensuring that statutory consultees were content.  In response to a query regarding the significant amount of responses that had been received in relation to Cheltenham Borough Council’s local plan consultation, Members were advised that this was no indication of the quality of the plan or public engagement, rather it was the content of the representation that was important - some would be one-line emails whereas others would raise technical matters relating to the National Planning Policy Framework which needed in-depth consideration.

69.9           Having considered the information provided, it was

RESOLVED          That the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in relation to the planning service be NOTED.