Agenda item

To be aware of the revised proposals to the Key Performance Indicators in relation to Planning. 

61.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 91-107, which informed Members of the proposed changes to the Planning Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

61.2          The Head of Development Services advised that Members would be aware that a review of the Planning service had been undertaken last year and it was intended to hold a briefing for all Members in January to update them on progress.  An action plan in response to the review had been approved by the Executive Committee in November 2021 and this had included a performance management stream which focused on ensuring there was effective monitoring in place.  One of the overarching recommendations was to review the way planning performance was reported internally and to bring the approach in line with national reporting as it was recognised that the current reporting targets were in line with what was expected for a high-performing authority which was not an accurate reflection of the current service. 

61.3          Members would be familiar with the current KPIs in relation to major, minor and ‘other’ applications; however, this was not in line with the criteria for reporting to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC).  As such, it was proposed to change internal reporting to align with the national standards the authority was required to report i.e. two categories relating to major applications and non-major applications.  The current threshold for speed of decisions was 60% for major development and 70% for non-major development – the Council was performing above those thresholds but improvement was still needed to become a high-performing planning authority.  As such, it was proposed to introduce a stretch target over three years, as set out at Pages No. 97-98 of the report.  The Government also required reporting on the quality of decisions which was not reported as a KPI currently so this was something which was proposed to be introduced going forward. 

61.4          In explaining the thinking behind the new targets, the Head of Development Services advised that the Business Transformation team had done a lot of analysis of other authorities with a similar make-up to Tewkesbury Borough Council in terms of the nature of the Borough and the type of applications submitted.  As mentioned, the current targets were what would be expected for a high performing authority and had increased year on year without being reviewed to check if they were appropriate - continually missing targets was very demotivating and demoralising for Officers.  The stretch targets proposed reflected the current situation and encouraged incremental improvement in performance.

61.5          A Member understood the need for more realistic targets, particularly in light of the comparison of the speed and quality of planning decisions against other authorities as set out at Appendix 2 to the report.  He expressed the view that it was necessary to get things in order before the planning application tracker was introduced.  He continued to have problems contacting Planning Officers by telephone and he asked when communication was likely to improve; he recognised Officers were under pressure but the lack of contact made things worse and it was essential that members of the public were able to find out what was happening with their planning applications.  He pointed out that this was the third review of the service since he had become a Councillor and he had been asking the same questions since that time so he questioned what the fundamental issues were within the department.  In response, the Head of Development Services acknowledged there were issues with communications and provided assurance that measures were actively being put in place now the Business Transformation team was engaged.  She would be able to talk more about the different aspects at the Member seminar in January so she encouraged attendance at that session.  The Member asked whether communication was monitored and was advised that calls, and whether Officers were answering phones, was monitored internally; however, it was not suggested this be included as a KPI at this stage.  The Corporate Services Manager confirmed that the Business Transformation team resources had been prioritised to support the planning review and a call monitoring portal had been identified as a potential solution to ensure transparency on calls received.

61.6          With regard to the need to report on the quality of decisions, a Member raised concern that this inferred that decisions being made by the Planning Committee were not sound – as a Member of that Committee he stood by the majority of the decisions which were made, particularly in relation to major applications, and he felt that non-quality decisions were often made by Planning Inspectors.  As such, he suggested this needed to be phrased differently to be clear it was not the Planning Committee making wrong decisions.  Another Member assumed the quality of decisions was ensuring there were robust reasons for making decisions and having confidence in those decisions so there was no comeback from Inspectors.  He drew attention to Page No. 97 of the report and questioned whether the aim of becoming a top performing Council by 2024/25, and the stretch targets associated with that, were too aspirational.  Whilst she felt it was a valid point, the Head of Development Services indicated that it was important to have ambition and the targets would be kept under review so they could be changed if things did not progress as planned.  Another Member welcomed the idea of realistic targets and he felt that a 3% increase for 2022/23 was viable but challenging unless there was something systematically wrong which could be corrected.  He asked what the direction of travel was currently and was advised that things were heading in the right direction and Officers were committed to improving on last year’s performance figures; whilst there had been a dip in performance during the quarter, it had been made clear to Officers this needed to be rectified.  The Member indicated it would be helpful to see the rate of improvement compared to past years’ and the Head of Development Services undertook to ensure this was included in the next performance management report.  In response to a query as to what measures were in place to prevent a yo-yo effect whereby performance against one target improved whilst another went down, the Head of Development Services explained that this had been the case recently due to the backlog of historical applications which had taken longer than expected to resolve; however, extra support had been provided for Officers to clear that backlog to a level considered reasonable for a planning authority and, once that had been done, more consistency was expected.  A Member asked if working from home had impacted on performance, either positively or negatively, and the Head of Development Services confirmed there were no issues with Officers working in a hybrid way.

61.7          It was

RESOLVED          That the proposed changes to the Planning Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as set out at Paragraphs 5-9 of the report, be NOTED.