Having looked at the incoming caseload and how it is split between types of application, it is worth looking at the actual outturn performance against targets. Nationally the overall under 8 weeks figure was in the 62% to 65% range for the period 1992 to early 2003. However, at that date a step change was to be noted as Planning Delivery Grant (PDG) started to kick in for 2003/04: overall national performance promptly rose to around 71-72%, whilst in 2004/05 it leapt to 77-78%. In the 3 month period April to June 2005 it stood at 81%. Meanwhile, on the Island, overall performance was predominantly between the upper 50’s and middle 60’s with occasional forays into the low 70’s; the average for the 16 quarters comprising 2002 to 2004 was 66%. However, since the beginning of 2005 the Island has significantly raised its game and has achieved figures of 78% and 82% per quarter overall.
|
|
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
||||||||||||
|
|
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
|
Isle
of Wight |
60 |
68 |
63 |
75 |
69 |
71 |
68 |
70 |
60 |
73 |
74 |
67 |
66 |
82 |
78 |
N/A |
|
England |
64 |
65 |
63 |
65 |
65 |
70 |
71 |
71 |
72 |
75 |
77 |
77 |
78 |
81 |
N/K |
N/A |
OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF APPLICATIONS DETERMINED WITHIN 8 WEEKS |
||||||||||||||||
But what these figures hide is that the average for England was around the bottom quartile for the southeast and only in the last year has it started to rise to nearer the median level. In other words, it is not very aspirational. If a comparison is made with other Unitary Authorities, the England average was around the median figure but is now rising towards top quartile level. What has also been happening over the past few years is that to get into the top quartile, overall performance has leapt by about 12% and top decile by 11%: even the top of the bottom quartile and decile have each risen by over 12%. To stand still is to fall behind; marking time is not an option.
To be sure of top quartile performance amongst all South East Authorities an overall score of about 90% will need to be targeted, top decile will need 90+%. Compared to all other Unitaries the respective figures are 84%+ and 87%+.
To achieve overall high levels of performance it is clear that because of the sheer preponderance of numbers, most authorities have concentrated on delivering minor and other applications, rather than majoring on majors because arithmetically majors have very little impact on the overall performance level attained. That approach, however, does not find favour with central government. Failure to attain, and maintain, targets can lead to an LPA being classified as a ‘standards authority’.
In the year ending 30 June IWC’s performance (with the national outturn figures in brackets) was:-
Major – 48% (61%) – government target 60%
Minor – 64% (69%) – government target 65%
Other – 83% (84%) – government target 80%
Overall – 73% (78%) – no specific target
There are no national published data to make comparisons for the period ending 30 September.
However, looking at the 6 months (with the 12 months performance in brackets) to 30 September IWC’s outturn was:-
Major – 33% (for the year to 30 September, 44%)
Minor – 73% (for the year to 30 September, 65%)
Other – 89% (for the year to 30 September, 85%)
Overall – 80% (for the year to 30 September, 74%)
These figures clearly show the great gains which have been made in determining minor and other applications.
Nevertheless, your officers acknowledge the difficulties in dealing with major applications, many of which are well over 13 weeks old. This is one of the reasons the ‘major developments team’ was set up. There is a real possibility that IWC will be classified by ODPM as a standards authority for major applications in 2006/07[2]. To try and drive authorities into higher performance, PDG allocations for development control are being weighted heavily in favour of performance in determining major applications.
Behind the headline figures are the throughput rates, the numbers of applications in the system (‘work in progress’) and the age of the applications. All that BVPI 109a, b and c, the government targets, measure is output. BVPI 109 does not measure backlog or volume of WIP, nor whether WIP is increasing or decreasing. The mere act of clearing out older applications can have an adverse impact on headline performance because the BVPI measure is a simple percentage of those within time compared to the total output for the period. ODPM recognises that there is currently no incentive, financial or otherwise, to deal with out of time applications, other than via non-determination appeals.
Since the beginning of March the overall volume of WIP has declined by 35% - the greatest continuous reduction since before 2002. The actual figures were 646 live applications at the beginning of March, 411 at the end of September. Given the number of applications received, it is unlikely that the average level of WIP attainable by IWC could realistically ever be reduced to below around 300 applications (50 applications per week times 6 weeks to determination). To these must be added the 25 applications currently awaiting the signing of a s106 obligation[3], not to mention those applications delayed because they go to DCSC and/or need amending and/or the agent or applicant continually wants to (re)negotiate the scheme after submission, and a figure of 375 – 425 appears to be a reasonable and sustainable level of WIP.
Driving out older applications from the system will inevitably depress overall headline performance figures and that explains why the 2005Q3 outturn was slightly lower than that achieved in 2005Q2, the highest ever recorded. Nevertheless, the 2005Q3 performance figure still remains the second highest recorded since the beginning of 2001, the best performance level having been 2005Q2. Furthermore, the total number determined in 2005Q3 was the second highest recorded since the beginning of 2001.
The most marked change is in respect of those applications that have been in the system for between 8 weeks and a year. These have been reduced from 219[4] in late April to 70 by late September – a reduction of 68%. Those over a year old have only been reduced from 48[5] to 38, but they will be receiving special attention in the current quarter. At least one third of all the applications over 8 weeks old are in the major category, albeit is accepted that an LPA has 13 weeks in which to determine them. Although this is a disproportionate number it is perhaps not totally unexpected given that a major application could be anything between 10 and 1000 houses, a single factory or a whole estate and hence the issues and complexities it can raise are far greater.
Meanwhile, those applications under 8 weeks old consistently fall into the 270-310 range at any one time.
Although there has been a significant improvement in performance, there is now a need to ensure that our customers receive a value added product of high quality and consistency. As with a high specification car, outright performance is not all, the customer wants reliability and certainty.
For the quarter ending 31 December 2005 it seems appropriate to set a target of 90% overall. This should be achievable because the overall outturn was 90% in September and for August and September combined it was 86%, compared to 78% for the entire quarter. It does however depend on resource levels being maintained, no diminution in staff morale or motivation caused by matters outside their control, the level and frequency of call-ins and no material upsurge in applications received. A health warning is perhaps in order to the effect that if IWC for any reason fails to capitalise on its achievements over the past 6 months it could be several years before the situation could be remedied.
Planning Appeals
The quarterly schedule of outstanding and decided appeals is attached at Annex 1 to this report. This updates the information given at the 9 August meeting. Members will note the continued success of the appeals section in consistently winning more appeals than the national average.
Excluding authorities where there were 5 or fewer appeals determined, IWC was within the top quartile of over 350 councils for its success in defending appeals in both 2003/04 and 2004/05, in fact in 2003/04 it was within the top decile.
IWC’s performance on appeals over the past two quarters has been as follows:-
|
|
2005Q2 |
2005Q3 |
Total for the 6 month period |
|
Number of new appeals lodged |
38 |
37 |
75 |
|
Number of appeals withdrawn |
3 |
1 |
4 |
|
Number of appeals awaiting determination |
50 |
59 |
N/A |
|
Number of appeals allowed (and percentage) |
11 (23%) |
7.5 (24%) |
18.5 (23%) |
|
Number of appeals dismissed (and percentage) |
36 (77%) |
24.5 (77%) |
60.5 (77%) |
|
SUMMARY OF
APPEALS AT END OF EACH QUARTER |
|||
Members may not be aware that authorities whose appeal success rate falls at least 40% below the national average (which stands at around 34%) will be penalised on their development control PDG award. On past and current performance this will not be a fate that befalls IWC.
But members must appreciate that the Planning Inspectorate determine appeals strictly in accordance with statutorily adopted development plans, ie the UDP and any other adopted guidance such as SPG. To wilfully ignore these, or to postulate that they are in some way advisory only and bits can therefore be ignored, will lead inexorably to adverse appeal decisions as well as the potential for costs awards against the council. The corollary, is that allowing certain applications contrary to policy can lead at the least to claims of bias and unfairness, possible allegations of cronyism, references to the Ombudsman and at worst a High Court challenge. In the extreme, the ODPM can step in and exercise his powers to revoke a permission already granted by the LPA and with full compensation payable, at the council’s expense, to the beneficiary of the permission. An exemplification of invoking this remedy was caused by the behaviour of North Cornwall District Council in the 1990’s.
Planning Enforcement
The information set out below expands on the data presented to the 15 March meeting. The council now has four full-time enforcement officers supported by a single part-time administrative assistant: this is a reduction of one post compared to last year. This team is making inroads into the outstanding enforcement investigations. It is important to realise that enforcement is not just a reactive service responding to complaints but also encompasses a proactive element ensuring that conditions are properly discharged and complied with, as well as ensuring payments due under s106 Obligations are received[6]. This latter aspect of the service is staffed by a single officer.
On the reactive side the earlier east/west split of current and outstanding casework has been merged to create a single consolidated, comprehensive and up to date schedule of all outstanding enforcement cases. This has enabled the service to better focus its resources. In the last few months, changes to working practices have also taken place with one of the enforcement officers concentrating on resolving the older cases whilst another concentrates on rapid initial responses to new cases. In both instances this has led to reductions in overall outstanding casework, a virtually guaranteed initial inspection and report within 10 working days of receiving the complaint and a halving of the number of older cases. This merging into a seamless service will be reviewed early in the New Year.
In particular, all outstanding sites have been visited within the past few months and provided the activity has not ceased, or the structure been removed, or planning permission granted, or the breach of control has in some other way been remedied a course of action has been identified. This could include inviting a planning application to regularise the breach, preparing formal notices or recommending prosecution where appropriate. It may also be that no further action is recommended because the breach is de mininis or not in the public interest/not expedient for the LPA to take action. Where cases have a degree of similarity they are being batched with a view to simultaneous service of notices or prosecutions.
Over the next few months members should see a far greater number of notices being served or summons being issued. Furthermore, where an unauthorised structure or use is likely to be capable of regularisation the service has secured a higher number of post-facto planning applications.
Nevertheless, members are reminded that from initial complaint through enforcement to final resolution can be a protracted process if transgressors exploit all avenues to avoid retribution.
The ever changing nature of the caseload is set out in the table below:-
|
|
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
Sub total |
2005 |
Total |
|
24 May |
4 |
8 |
10 |
43 |
65 |
79 |
144 |
|
17 June |
4 |
8 |
10 |
40 |
62 |
81 |
143 |
|
29 June |
3 |
7 |
10 |
38 |
58 |
80 |
138 |
|
20 July |
3 |
6 |
9 |
35 |
53 |
80 |
133 |
|
3 August |
0 |
5 |
6 |
30 |
41 |
85 |
127 |
|
25 August |
0 |
5 |
6 |
30 |
41 |
114 |
155 |
|
23 September |
0 |
5 |
6 |
27 |
38 |
106 |
144 |
|
5 October |
0 |
5 |
3 |
23 |
31 |
101 |
132 |
|
OUTSTANDING
ENFORCEMENT CASELOAD BY YEAR OF RECEIPT |
|||||||
Members will note that the outstanding cases from 2004 and earlier have been reduced by nearly 55% in the past 4 months. And whereas the service was just keeping abreast of new, incoming cases until the middle of the year, it is now making real inroads into current complaints. Your officers are, however, at a lost to explain the sudden increase in the number of complaints received in August – possibly it’s a schools summer holiday phenomenon, or maybe second home owners who only visit the Island once a year. It does, however, repeat a pattern first noted last year. Overall the total number of outstanding cases remains, for the most part, in the in the 130 – 145 range.
Set out at Annex 2 are tables showing the overall number of complaints received and the notices served.
Conclusion and recommendation
That Members note the report.
Background papers
Published reports (whether delegated or to DCSC) on each application or appeal. Individual enforcement files are exempt under s15 of the Access to Information Act