Processing & Determination of Planning Applications

To consider the new targets for handling planning applications leading to an appropriate response in terms of additional resources and improved procedures enabling the Development Control Section to achieve the relevant performance standards within the shortest possible period of time.

Best Value imposes a duty on local authorities of continuous improvement in the delivery of their services. It requires a regular fundamental review of functions and implementation of changes arising from those reviews, with the aim of providing better customer focus. Permanent achievement is measured against a set of national indicators.

The target for local authorities to determine 80% of applications within 8 weeks was the nationally recognised standard up until 31 March 2002. The Government admitted that local authorities were struggling to meet this target. They also agreed that the target was unsatisfactory and that it did not differentiate between applications which may have a significant local impact and those that will have minimal effect. The Government admitted that it may even encourage authorities to give priority to simpler applications to the detriment of those that are more complex.

In November 2001 the DTLR published new targets for 2002/03 for the handling of planning applications.

The targets reflect the current performance of the top 20% of planning authorities in each of the categories. The package of new targets described above will underpin BV Indicator 109 from 2002/03. At that time DTLR also indicated that they intended to introduce other changes to the BV Indicators as well as introducing new minimum performance standards for 2002/03 based on performance against these targets.

“We must have a clear, predictable and efficient planning system; jobs and local economies depend on it. For too, too long people have felt the planning system is a tundra of bewildering uncertainty.”

“These new targets come into effect on April 1 after a consultation launched in November last year; it will be a tough challenge to deliver but people expect a better performing planning service.”

The DTLR/Best Value Performance Indicators 2002/03 have now been published and 78 authorities are ‘named and shamed’, as having failed to reach an appropriate standard for any one of the three categories and will now be subject of a performance standard for the current financial year.

Performance standard applies to authorities which determine less than 25% in 13 weeks in 2000/01. The standard that these authorities must reach is to determine 45% of major applications within 13 weeks in 2002/03.

For minor applications the standard applies to authorities which in 2000/01 determined less than 35% in 8 weeks. The standard that these authorities must reach is to determine 50% of minor applications within 8 weeks in 2002/03.

For other applications the standard applies to authorities which determined less than 55% in 8 weeks in 2000/01. The standard that these authorities must reach is to determine 65% within 8 weeks in 2002/03.

Among those authorities identified as ‘failing’ are members of the NUB Group and also members of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Planning Officers Group (HIPOG) including East Hampshire, Test Valley, Fareham and Southampton.

On the assumption that the criteria for being affected by the performance standard remains unchanged for the current financial year, 2001/02, then the need for urgent action becomes clear. An analysis for the last financial year shows the following returns:

Consequently we will be identified next year as a failing authority in terms of the determination of major applications, despite the fact that our performance in respect of minor applications and other applications is improving and reasonably encouraging.

The statistics indicate that the main problem area is the processing of major residential (ie more than 10 dwellings) where only 4 applications out of a total of 34 applications were determined within 13 weeks. This is due to a variety of reasons including implications arising out of the new PPG3, drainage problems and other technical issues combined with unnecessary deferments and obviously limited resources and lack of ‘in-house’ expertise. However the principle delays arise from a poor response rate from consultees, both internal and external, and the protracted preparation of Section 106 Agreements.

The standard that we will have to reach is to determine 45% of major applications within 13 weeks in 2003/04 while still maintaining improvement in other areas.

Following consultation the DTLR have also retained an indicator on delegated decisions; the target is 90% of all applications. During the consultation period some concern was expressed about this target, however, we are advised a significant number of local authorities are already achieving this figure without harm to local democratic procedures.

“Local authorities who receive a disproportionate number of controversial applications which cannot reasonably be dealt with by officers and may be able to justify a performance below 90% on these grounds. Authorities will nevertheless wish to review their delegation schemes to ensure that they are appropriate and that the best use is being made of Members’ time. Many authorities requested more guidance on delegation and we look forward to working with the LGA to revise their current good practice guidance on delegation for issue later this year.”

In a press release the Minister, Lord Falconer, said on this particular subject:

“...some planning committees that are reluctant to adopt comprehensive delegation schemes must now recognise and embrace the benefits that this practice can bring.”

These targets have to be achieved against a background of improved consultation with the local community and the opportunity for the public to speak at Planning Committee meetings; this Council having already made a commitment to introduce public speaking at Development Control Committee in mid 2002.

The targets for 2002/03 are set out in Appendix C, column 7. Members will note that when compared with current performance, the targets for dealing with minor applications 7(c), and other applications 7(d) should be achievable. This can be achieved by appropriate application of the delegated procedure with the target 7(e) of 84%. Members attention is drawn to major applications (b) and the identified target for 2002/03 7(b) of 45% which is a 30%+ improvement on current performance 6(b).

Our performance last year, column 5, means that if the DTLR retain the same performance standard, we will be identified this time next year as a failing Authority in this particular area. Consequently, it is imperative that the target for the current financial year achieves the same standard as that expected for the failing Authorities; if we achieve this level of performance, we should avoid being named as a failing Authority in two consecutive years.

Issues arising from the new performance targets and performance standards have been discussed in detail and it has been decided that the most appropriate way forward was to report the situation to this Committee in conjunction with a set of recommendations which should enable the Development Control Manager to move towards achieving the necessary targets in 2002/03 and 2003/04.

Appended to this report are illustrations in terms of the number applications received since reorganisation on an annual basis (A); the number of applications on a monthly basis since January 2001 (B); and a detailed analysis of the recent, current and future performance indicators and standards as well as targets set by the Development Control Manager for 2002/03 and 2003/04 (C) referred to above.

Members will know that the majority of planning applications and other related submissions attract a fee. Following extensive research carried out by ARUP (Economics and Planning) the DTLR have examined planning fees and the use of resources to provide an efficient and effective development control service:

∙ DTLR have already decided that in order to achieve 100% cost recovery requires a 14% rise in fees for non-County matter applications and this increase came into operation on 1 April 2002.

∙ As a ‘sister’ document of the Green Paper the DTLR published their research document on ‘Resourcing of Local Planning Authorities’.

In the last financial year the cost of the development control service was £394,000 not including administrative support.

Year on year this authority has enjoyed significant increases in terms of planning fee income and in the last financial year (2001/02) it has been estimated that this will amount to nearly £547,000 which represents a substantial increase in the amount received for the previous year, although it does include a £30,000 accrual from 2000/01 The DTLR expects that this income should be reinvested in the planning service, specifically development control. With a 14% rise, if the number of applications remain steady, it is reasonable to anticipate a further income during the current financial year. Appended to this report is an illustration showing fee income since 1997/98 with a projection for fee income in the current financial year (2002/03) (D).

The principal objective of this report is to outline to Members the gravity of the present situation and give an overview on the type of measures that need to be taken to enable the Development Control Section to determine a substantial increase in the number of major applications within the prescribed time period during the present financial year.

The Planning Green Paper recognises the shortcomings and failure of Authorities nationwide in terms of providing an effective and efficient development control service and, in my opinion, it is important that this Council adopt a proactive approach to dealing with the problem where we have advance knowledge that we will be deemed to be a failing Authority in terms of dealing with major applications during the last financial year.

It is important to identify the developing trends and the need to arrest the alarming downturn in the processing of major applications. The targets set out means that there must be a radical and immediate improvement in a number of areas if we are to avoid being identified as a failing Authority and risk the ultimate penalty of intervention by the DTLR. This is why immediate action is now required.

An improvement on the present situation, in my view, can only be achieved by critically reviewing three key areas:-

On the basis that there is unlikely to be any significant fall in the number of applications, indeed the projections suggest that the number of applications will actually increase, combined with the wish of the Government for local authorities to involve themselves more with the general public, as well as the introduction of public speaking at Development Control Committee, a substantial improvement in “turnaround” figures will be difficult to achieve without an overall review of existing procedures.

To this end the Directorate Management Team have decided to bring forward the Best Value Review for the Development Control Section to year 4 so that it will start in April 2003, work on introducing a document imaging project will start shortly and when implemented should reduce present paper storage problems and, more importantly, speed up access with obvious associated benefits for both staff and the general public.

• Post decision, preparation of Section 106 Agreement and drafting decision notice.

• Continue to offer facilities to applicants/agents to make pre-submission presentations to this Committee/Council.

• Provide the Chairman/local Member with copies of any pre-submission written material.

• Afford the Chairman/local Member and other Members the opportunity to discuss the application following submission at an early opportunity.

• Prioritise early target date driven consultations with statutory and non-statutory bodies, including internal consultees.

• Wherever possible, preparation of draft report inside eight weeks of receipt of application.

• Where necessary, preparation of draft legal agreement prior to reporting application to Committee.

In my view, if this procedure is carefully followed, the consultations will be completed within a reasonable timescale, Members will be better informed, the Case Officer will be in a position to draft a report at an earlier date and the Committee should be able to determine far more major applications within the prescribed 13 week period.

The aforementioned improvement cannot be achieved without enhancing the existing staff resources. To illustrate this point, I would invite Members to consider the following information and statistics:

• Staff employed within the Development Control Section dealing with the processing and determination of application has not increased since 1995/96

• The Development Control Section, including advice, staffing numbers (FTE) as at 1 April 2001 was 18.8 officers. This figure includes administrative support but does not include conservation, enforcement or appeals (a).

• The number of applications received, registered and advertised in the last financial year was just less than 2,250. In practice, more applications were received and went through the initial stages of processing but, for a variety of reasons, were subsequently invalid.

• The trends and indicators of workload (and expenditure) in terms of district and unitary authorities for 2000/01 shows an average of 90 applications dealt with for each member of development control (b).

• For the last financial year, our own situation reveals a figure 33% higher at almost 120 applications.

Source - (a) the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Planning and Development Statistics 2001.

(b) Resourcing of Local Planning Authorities (Planning Research) DTLR February 2002.

In practice, when you discount management and administrative support, there are significantly less planning officers whose principal role is the processing and determination of planning applications. This means that the actual number of applications dealt with by each individual officer with that particular responsibility on average for the last financial year in real terms is 225 and I am able to advise Members that one officer dealt with 379 applications (76.3% were within the 8 week period).

The document Resourcing of Local Planning Authorities (Executive Summary) quite clearly states that staff levels are too low for flexibility, particularly on development control where the ideal ratio is around one person for every 150/200 applications, plus support services, a substantial and significant difference. The appointment of the two additional Officers recommended below should bring this figure down to about 185 applications per Officer.

• Authorities need to provide adequate resources for Best Value studies so as not to take staff away from the main service provision. This needs to be done through extra staff allocations, not just switching resources

• Graduates need to be attracted into Local Authorities by better salaries and better progression.

“The heavy workload has been repeatedly cited as one of the principal reasons why staff are leaving the profession. Consultation evidence suggests that it is contributing to both poor staff morale and a poor image of the planning profession. As a result, it is also a factor in discouraging young people from entering the profession.”

Nationally there has been a 26% increase in the number of applications since 1996, but only a 7% increase in development control spend, including planning fee income. Independent of inflation an increase in spending of up to 20% on planning would be required to compensate for the increase in workload. In order to restore the number of applications per development control staff to the levels in 1996 would require a 27% increase in the number of staff; research on behalf of the DTLR would suggest that this would be between four and five additional staff per authority.

In terms of the overall process, it is my view that the delegated arrangements in respect of the determination of planning applications and other related submissions is working reasonably well. Nevertheless, in order to facilitate improvements in other areas, the government has set a performance target of 90% for delegation and consequently, in my opinion, there is a need to review the delegation arrangements at the earliest possible opportunity. Any assessment will include an appraisal of the present process since it was amended almost two years ago, and explore the possibility of further improvements or refinements which will move the current delegation rate from 82.8%up to the target figures for this year and next year, and then in the third year towards the Government’s target of 90%.

In similar terms there is a need to review the site visit procedures. In my view, there is the possibility of improvement in two specific areas. Firstly, the need to identify where a site visit will be necessary and to ensure that arrangements are made for Members to visit the site before the application is considered by the Committee. Secondly, to reduce the number of unnecessary site visits by the introduction of a strict criteria which will include a detailed explanation as to why a site visit is necessary before an application can be determined.

I do hope that unnecessary deferments for additional information can be substantially reduced by building Member/Officer relationships where Members identify to Officers at the earliest possible stage where they have any particular concerns about an application. Such issues should be raised and discussed prior to the meeting of the Committee.

When giving careful analytical consideration to the problem, the current performance indicators, the recently introduced performance standard and the statistics included in the aforementioned DTLR report on the resourcing of local planning authorities, it is clear that we need to address the problem by the injection of further staffing resources. The target areas would be the processing and determination of major applications complemented by the establishment of two career posts to assist in maintaining the improvement in the processing and determination of minor and other applications which make up the bulk of the workload and are normally dealt with as part of the delegated procedure allowing more senior officers to focus on major submissions.

In combination with the other measures outlined in the earlier part of this report, I am reasonably confident that this will enable us to progress towards the performance standard of 45% of major applications being dealt with within 13 weeks while not seriously impacting on the other applications, which probably make up about 90% of the overall workload.

I would contend that the measures outlined in the recommendations, together with modest internal restructuring and reallocation of duties will bring about a significant improvement in terms of performance which cannot be achieved with the present level of resources. The recommendations set out in this paper, not including the additional administrative staff in connection with the introduction of public speaking which is already a commitment, would amount to approximately £40,000 per annum not including ‘on’ costs. It is imperative that action is taken at the earliest possible opportunity so that the objectives can be achieved at an early stage and the Council, as Local Planning Authority, through its Development Control Section, work towards the recently formulated Government targets and performance standards.

The Heads of Service likely to be affected by these proposals have been consulted and any observation will be reported at the meeting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Appointment of a new Principal Planning Officer to lead on major applications.

2. Creation of two career posts requiring the appointment of one new Junior Planning Assistant

3. To request the respective Heads of Service to bring about a significant essential improvement in response times on consultations about highway issues, environmental health matters and landscaping/trees and the preparation of draft Section 106 Agreements prior to determination of major applications

4. Carry out a review of the delegation system.

5. Carry out a review of the criteria for deferring applications or requesting site visits.

	(1) DTLR performance target for 2001/02	(2) DTLR performance standard for 2000/01	(3) DTLR performance standard for failing authorities for 2002/03	(4) DTLR new performance targets for 2002/03	(5) IWC (Dev Con) performance for 2001/02	(6) IWC (Dev Con) performance (1/1/02-31/3/02) (current trend)	(7) IWC (Dev Con) target 2002/03	(8) IWC (Dev Con) target 2003/04
(a) Number of applications dealt with in 8 weeks	80%	50%	-	-	60.5%	60.0%	65%	70%
(b) Major applications - number dealt with in 13 weeks	-	25%	45%	60%	20.4%	13.3%	45%	50%
(c) Minor applications - number dealt with in 8 weeks	-	35%	50%	65%	52.4%	52.3%	55%	65%
(d) Other applications - number dealt with in 8 weeks	-	55%	65%	80%	71.3%	69.9%	74%	80%
(e) Delegated decisions	80%	-	-	90%	80.1%	82.8%	84%	85%

(a) 8 week figure deemed to be obsolete as of 31/3/02. IWC performance for 2001/02 (5) represents an 11.5% improvement on 2000/01 despite a 20% increase in the overall number of applications received over the same period. With associated improvements under (b), (c) and (d) there is reason to believe that this figure will progress towards 70% [(7) and (8)] over the next two year period.

(b) New performance target introduced in November 2001. Performance standard "names and shames" 78 authorities who have failed to achieve a 25% return for 2000/01 (2). Our performance for the last year (4) means that if DTLR retain the same performance standard, we will be identified at this time next year as a failing authority in this particular area. Consequently, it is imperative that the target for the current financial year (7) achieves the same standard as that expected for the failing authorities.

(c) This is an area where we are progressing towards the new performance target (4). It is anticipated that there will be an improvement in this area in 2002/03 but it will be gradual as resources have to be targeted at dealing with major applications (b).

(d) IWC performance (5) indicates that we are moving towards the performance target well above the performance standard. For reasons similar to (c), it is anticipated that there will be a modest improvement in this area during 2002/03 because of the need to target resources at major applications.

(e) Since the review of the delegation arrangements, we have been just below the former performance target (1). The level of delegation is increasing and is now approaching 83% but the new performance target for 2002/03 (4) is 90%, which may be difficult to achieve; there is no performance standard (2) for delegation. Progress in this area is important and this is reflected in the targets.