Lessons from benchmarkingWhat happens in planning authorities?

Toby Hamilton, Martin Hutchings

Positive Planning Day

March 2015 www.pas.gov.uk

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

Major non residential 2149 £2,841 £6,277 All dwellings 14162 £1,664 £1,293 Minor non residential 20999 £783 £410 Householders 48020 £408 £131 Heritage 11981 £449 £2 All waste 58 £4,155 £5,137 All minerals 144 £622 £1,110 All others 48668 £385 £158 Conditions 12540 £268 £93 All app types 158721 £589 £353

Productivity

• “We are not updating the 150 cases per officer thing”– In the end, we have caved in

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– = less wiggle room– 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?

Drivers of productivity:

• Work mix– high numbers of simple applications. Fast track.

Often urban.• Large authorities = often higher productivity• Plus local factors (e.g. contamination)

Supergroups = ONS classification

Customers

• In aggregate there were clear messages– Talk to us, generally. It’s just manners. – Talk to us *especially* when there are issues– We (generally) fail on customer care

• We fail because we don’t acknowledge Work In Progress and follow a target culture

Reflections on the old benchmark

• Massive shift in understanding– Financial literacy– Looking beyond NI157

• National indicators hide almost everything about performance

• Subsidy represents a risk to development• Communication is often weak

Benchmarking is dead. Long live PQF.

Basic building blocks adapted and recycled…

• More focused on customers• Internal management tool / external ‘declaration’• Not an annual snapshot, but a continuous process• We want it to become a “badge”. Over time.

Planning Quality Framework

Contains information and data on 3 things

1. Performance

2. Customer experience

3. Good planning delivery

fee income

Approved ?

Valid ?

No fee ? (exc. heritage & trees)

Customer or Target-driven?

More to come

• Resources • Investment

[need more testing]• Pre-app• PPAs

[not invented yet]

Is it getting busier ? [yes]

Development value in our place = £60m/yr

Customer survey results Application Ref: HA/FUL/4456/14

“PAS Planning Quality Framework = consistent, relevant information to benchmark performance” (p12):