improving planning services
TRANSCRIPT
Improving Planning Services
PAS Spring Conference 2015
Martin Hutchings, Toby Hamilton
Date: March 2015 www.pas.gov.uk
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
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)
Part 1 What is really happening in planning services?
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
What we’ll cover
• Costs and subsidy of planning• Fees• Productivity• Customer survey• Planning Quality Framework
What do councils spend the money on?
Percentage of LPA cost not covered by fees and income
• Each vertical line represents a different LPA• Average subsidy = almost 70% (at the time)
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 (!)
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%
Productivity
• “We are not updating the 150 cases per officer thing”
Productivity
• “We are not updating the 150 cases per officer thing”
– In the end, we have (sort of)
Caseload = 144 / case officer
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”
All-in figure is 88 cases per person
All-in figure is 88 cases per person
Why is there such a difference?
Work mix
– high numbers of simple applications. Fast track.
Size seems to make some difference
Large authorities = often higher productivity
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
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
http://qualityframework.net/
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
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
Your work profileCouncil 1 Council 2 Council 3
Council 4 Council 5 Council 6
• Variety• Benchmarking • Data integrity
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
Outcomes – approvals
Council 1
Council 2
Council 3
Council 4
Council 5
Council 6
• Trends• Messages• Differences
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
No fee (exc. heritage & trees)
Value Vs Non-value
Council 1
Council 2
Council 3
Council 4
Council 5
Council 6
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
Customer or Target-driven?
Process performance
Box Plots
Most (50%) of the data
median
Upper 25%
Lower 25%
Average
Customer or Target-driven?
Process performance
GOOD
Decisions asap
BAD
Last minute
More to come
• Resources • Investment
[need more testing]
Is it getting busier ? [yes]
Council 1
Council 2
Council 3
Council 4
Council 5
Council 6
Development value in our place = £60m/yr
Council 1
Council 2
Council 3
Council 4
Council 5
Council 6
Customer Surveys• Agents, Applicants, Neighbours, Peers• Staff, councillors, amenities• Tied to an individual application• Help, Time, Information, Straightforward.
Customer Surveys
• “We may be slow, but we offer a quality service”– This allows you to test, prove
• Same questions nation-wide• Early days
survey results Application Ref: HA/FUL/4456/14
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
“PAS Planning Quality Framework = consistent, relevant information to benchmark performance” (p12):
Solution in search of a problem ?
• Purpose• Routine• Value
• Or do something else …• Use it or lose it ?
Part 2 Rethinking Planning (revolutionising ways of working for our customers)
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
Project plans Wide ranging Big bang
Project plans
Wide ranging Big bang
Start here
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)
A Revolution in Planning
Nick SmithCheshire West & Cheshire
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
Planning decisions by number of days (March 2014-September 2014)
8 weeks
Time – March 2014 to September 2014
Num
ber
of d
ays
Current case load (per Officer at any one time)
‘As is’ process
‘As is’ process
Pre-app phone
Formal pre-app
Consultations
Planning application
Discharge of conditions Committee?Appeals?
Systems thinking diagrams
To enable the best development
without delay
Purpose
1. Can I build?2. Appraise it3. Get the information you need (to make a
decision)4. Tell the customer they can do it (or why
they can’t)
MethodValue adding steps that help us to enable the
best development without delay
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…
“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”
“It gives us as agents maximum chance to help resolve queries or respond to suggestions”
This is absolutely fabulous - my Client will be extremely pleased at the speed and efficiency with which this has been dealt with.
I can't believe you are calling so quickly - you are obviously not Cheshire East! Direct quote from Michael Gore (MEG Design)
I wish a few more local authorities were as helpful and informative as yours, I was very impressed. (I submit applications across the UK).
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
Shorter end-to-end times Happier customers Staff morale Focusing on one application at a time means
improved quality of decision making
Benefits
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
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all
Peter Drucker
Any questions?