Performance and designation

RE: DM Performance – Latest on Speed and Quality of Decision Making 2019

2019-07-03T05:32:30Z

Thanks Clive - yes definately could cause an issue for the designation stats esp Table 153 on no majors that I work off. I have also contacted MHCLG to see if the performanc team are aware of anything. Keep us posted if you get a response. Cheers.

DM Performance – Latest on Speed and Quality of Decision Making 2019

2019-04-25T14:30:28Z

There are 2 important things to take from this message:

PAS has tools to help you manage and monitor performance - the 'PAS Crystal Balls' (attached).
We have a range of performance improvement support; free to councils in most need (contact martin.hutchings@local.gov.uk directly for more information and help)

There are 2 parts to the ‘designation’ regime – ‘Speed and Quality’. A full explanation of how it all works can be found HERE.

Speed of Decision Making

Current assessment period: October 2017 - September 2019

Quarters that have elapsed so far: 5

Quality of decision making*:

Current assessment period: April 2017 – March 2019 (decisions made), April 2017 – December 2019 (appeals received).

Quarters that have elapsed so far: 3

* visit PAS blog where I have made an additional explanation of how the Quality measure works

How PAS Supports councils (1) - avoiding designation

PAS' job on Designation is to help councils with how to recognise, measure and most importantly how to avoid designation.

Attached are the latest versions of the PAS 'Crystal Ball(s)'. They allow you to measure performance in as close to real time as you care to feed in your most up to date performance data. I'd encourage ALL councils to use the crystal balls as part of their performance management framework – don't get caught out - poor performance often ‘creeps up’ and over a 2 year reporting period just a couple of poor quarters can really drag overall performance down leaving little time to recover.

How PAS Supports councils (2) - how best to respond if you're in danger

PAS monitors councils’ performance each time the government publishes a new set of statistics (the ‘live’ tables). We look out for performance scores that are either close to or below the designation thresholds, or are on trajectory that is pointing towards trouble. We write to the head of planning in the spirit of: “we assume everything is in hand, BUT if you’d like some support, we have a range designed to help you improve performance in your specific circumstances”. PAS support ranges from the simple and straightforward e.g. a review of your PS1/2 returns to a more in-depth on-site service improvement review or a peer challenge of your planning committee operations and processes.

The 2 year reporting period, plus the quarterly publishing of the performance data means that new councils can appear on our radar each time the government publishes the latest statistics - so keep an eye on your inbox.

Either join the discussion here or contact martin.hutchings@local.gov.uk directly for more information and help.

Performance Statistics, Designation & PAS Crystal Ball(s) 2018

2018-09-21T10:46:10Z

Hello - this thread replaces 'Designation crystal ball 2017' - which is DEFINITELY STILL WORTH A READ - it has loads of great info and guidance, and is a useful history of how PAS and councils have been responding. It's got a bit unwieldy though so I'm beginning a new thread here for the current designation period.

Latest performance statistics are out (20/09/2018)

The latest stats were published yesterday MHCLG. Only one more quarter to go, and that is almost over (to end of September).

PAS Support (1) - get ahead of the game - avoiding designation

PAS' job on Designation is to help councils with how to recognise, measure and most importantly how to avoid it (I wrote a blog last year on that very matter - it's still relevant just move the dates referred to on one year)

Attached are the latest PAS 'Crystal Balls'; one for speed, one for quality. They let you measure performance in as close to real time as you care to feed them your most up to date performance data. I'd encourage ALL councils to use the crystal balls as part of their performance management framework – don't get caught out - poor performance often ‘creeps up’ and over a 2 year reporting period just a couple of poor quarters can really drag overall performance down leaving little time to recover.

PAS Support (2) - get ahead of the game - how best to respond if you're in danger
If you are a head of planning I will most likely have written to you earlier this year if I had concerns about your performance, offering a menu of support including FREE help to:

re-check your PS1/2 data submissions (you'll not be surprised to learn that most I check have errors)
review DM process efficiency if you are failing on the Speed measure
review committee operation and decision making if you are failing on the Quality measure.

The 2 year reporting period means new councils can appear on my radar each time the government publishes the latest statistics - so keep an eye on your inbox in the next week.

Quality of decisions assessment - warrants a special mention

The Quality measure is still fairly new and it has a number of confusing elements to how it functions and the assessment period it uses (which is not the same as the speed measures). Lots of us are still not 100% clear on how it operates - you're not alone - have a look at a blog I did attempting to explain the quality measure here and how one council I was impressed with tries to stay ahead of things here.

Have a look at/use the Crystal Balls and let me know how you get on/what you think.

Designation crystal ball 2017

2017-10-09T11:25:31Z

[this post replaces an earlier one that was getting a bit long and confusing. See the end for a new section on the new, experimental, 'quality' statistics]

Designation, and how to recognise, measure and avoid it

Since 2012 there has been a process analogous to 'special measures' for planning authorities. It is called 'designation' because the secretary of state has powers [under Section 62A Town and Country Planning Act 1990] to designate particular local planning authorities for poor performance. As a consequence, applicants can choose to bypass the local authority and submit applications direct to PINS.

It is worth reading the official explanatory memorandum
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/571962/EM_-_Criteria_Document.pdf
and the criteria document itself
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/571144/Improving_Planning_Performance_-_Criteria_for_Designation__revised_2016_.pdf
It's also worth bookmarking the live tables published by DCLG and remembering which table does what:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-planning-application-statistics

Table P151: Majors speed ('a' is district, 'b' is county matter)
Table P152: Majors 'quality' ('a' is district, 'b' is county matter)
Table P153: Non-majors speed
Table P154: Non-majors 'quality'
Table P155: Oil/Gas developments

Common misunderstandings

There are a few things that can catch people out.

Non-majors is defined in a different way to the old "minors and others" category. Table 153 has the list of 'Q' codes from the PS2 that go to make up this set. [It is the set of non-major planning applications Q13-Q21 - eg it excludes adverts and trees].
Make sure your PS2 submissions are correct. A surprising number of people don't check them before they go, and fail to notice that negotiated timetables (extension of time or planning performance agreement) are not accounted for properly. Remember that a negotiated timetable that you deliver counts as a "win", not just the absence of a loss. We see many common errors, so we made a short note of things to check with your PS1/2 returns.
Understand how the periods of assessment fall - we've made a "crystal ball" to help [download it from the post above]. Its a two year rolling assessment, so plan ahead. But speed and quality use different rolling two years to allow for appeal decisions to be taken into account when measuring quality. You will need to have a process of revisiting and updating pending appeals when you find out the result.
The 'quality' assessment often misunderstood. Calculate it yourself to be sure its correct.

the numerator (the number on the top) = how many appeals you lose
the denominator (the number on the bottom) = how many decisions you take

10% is not many for majors, especially if you have a run of speculative applications. Make sure your committee understands the cumulative as well as individual impact of losing appeals.

==
Update 16th August 2017

There is a new test spreadsheet attached now - in addition to the Q6 'speed' crystal ball you have also a Q5 'quality' crystal ball. DCLG have provided us with a quarter-by-quarter version of table 152 as published recently.
This allows you to discard the three quarters that will not be used in the next round of designation - important if your performance is worsening over the range.

Frankly this 9 month delay makes for a horrid way to assess performance, and I strongly encourage every council who thinks they may be near the threshold to calculate the result for themselves. Do not wait for DCLG to publish the final result in xmas. You know almost every number you need to arrive at a very accurate assessment - use the template in the speed crystal ball and ask if you need any help.

New "experimental" statistics published

2017-10-09T11:25:48Z

I see that DCLG statisticians have published new tables 152 and 154

Make sense to everyone ?

New quality measure for designation

2017-05-17T07:43:26Z

There still aren't any public statistics on the new 'quality' measure for designation. This is the one where 10% of decisions upheld at appeal is the bar, and matters only really for 'majors'.

I went to see a district yesterday who have lost 3 appeals in the last 18 months and determined 27 applications. Because they have noticed now there is time to make the strongest case they can at the next point where designation is considered.

Check your numbers (use the designation crystal ball) and talk to us if you think you might have a problem - this really matters for smaller LPAs.

RE: New designation for non-majors

2017-01-24T11:28:37Z

FYI- I emailed the DCLG regarding how to deal with Section 73 applications in the PS1/2s

The Guidance Notes for PS2 states: On the PS2 form, the application for a variation or removal of condition should be coded under the same code as the original application (i.e. if original application was for a minor development, the application for a removal of condition should also be classified as a minor development).

Yet SI 2016 No.944, which came into force on 21^st October excludes variation of condition applications from the performance measures

Which is the correct approach?

Their response: I can confirm that the PS2 form guidance is the correct approach. We are aware of the inconsistency you have flagged, and it is a matter that we have been able to address for those authorities who may be liable for designation in 2017, and which we can address more generally for the 2018 designation round

RE: New designation for non-majors

2017-01-06T08:51:22Z

Hello Sarah,

I didn't think that counties were involved in non-major designation, although I've just skim-read the criteria document again and it doesn't say so.

I'll ask ...

RE: New designation for non-majors

2017-01-04T15:05:30Z

Happy New Year to you all.

It is quite possible that I am missing the obvious, but where are the performance figures (Oct 14 - Sep 16) for non-majors for Counties? Table 153 published in December covers the performance of District planning authorities - speed of non-major development decisions, and includes Unitaries and National Parks. Table 151b covers Counties for major development, but I can't find anything for non-major development performance (this would be our Reg 3 applications), other than Tables 143 and 144 which are Reg 3 & 4 applications quarterly and annually, respectively.

The Criteria for Designation (Dec 2016) document refers to just Table 153 for speed of non-major development, so I think I am looking in the right place. However, happy for someone to tell me I have been looking in the wrong place, or better still that Counties are excluded from this!

Thanks,

Sarah

RE: New designation for non-majors

2016-12-20T08:29:10Z

RE Tables 152 & 154

I dropped the DCLG an email a couple of weeks ago, here's their response...

"Although we and the Planning Inspectorate are making progress on addressing the technical concerns on the appeals data, we don’t yet have a date for the next update of live tables P152 and P154.

As you may be aware, Simon Gallagher’s letter of 22 November to Chief Planners (attached) indicated that the Department “will not be assessing local authorities’ performance on the quality of their decisions on either major or non-major applications in 2017 but for applications for both major and non-major development in the 2018 designation round” and so we will need to have resolved all the concerns in time for robust figures to be available for early 2018 – and although we are intending to have produced updated tables in good time for that, we are not currently working to a precise timescale."

Regards, John

RE: New designation for non-majors

2016-12-15T11:54:53Z

Looks like the DCLG has released the updated stats for the speed of decisions in the live tables :

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-planning-application-statistics

They now cover October 2014 - September 2016 which is the full period for the new designation assessment.

Seem to be 14 authorities have been caught below the new 'non-major development' designation threshold, including some big authorities.

RE: New designation for non-majors

2016-12-09T13:13:39Z

I think I have posted this entry on the wrong thread so I am sorry if this repeats

Can someone confirm my understanding about quality of decision?

the decsions made on themajor/ non major applications within a 2 year period will be looked at 9 months later to see which ones appealed. We are then looking at no more than 10% appeals allowed on decsions that were made in that specific 2 year period?

Have I got that right?

thanks

new designations for non-majors

2016-12-09T13:08:55Z

I am looking at the explaination for how the quality of application will be judged.

Can someone confirm that I am on the right track. At the moment we look at the number of appeal desisions received in a quarter and the number of applications determined in that quarter to calculate our internal statistics for appeals.

As I understand the quality explaination we will look at the decsions made in a particular 2 year period, then 9 months later, look to see which of those applications appealed (other than about conditions) the calculation is then about no more than 10% of the appeals allowed of those applications determined in the 2 year period.

Have I got that right?

thanks

RE: New designation for non-majors

2016-12-09T11:50:07Z

Am I also correct in assuming that although the Section 73 applications are no longer counted for PS1 & PS2 purposes, the publicity arrangements remain unchanged, as per the Procedure order?

RE: New designation for non-majors

2016-12-09T09:50:16Z

So, let me make sure that I've got this right. Section 73 applications for variation/removal of conditions on a planning application, which were previously classified as either major or non-major, according to the relevant classification of the original planning permission, are now to be coded as, in effect, what used to be a Q28 'other' application (commencing 21st October).

Which means that when the next set of designations are made at the end of 2017, they will be measuring 4 quarters figures with Section 73 applications included and 4 quarters with them excluded.

RE: New designation for non-majors

2016-12-08T18:43:19Z

This is a good question, but I think there is a different way of looking at it.

The applications for which an authority might be designated might exclude s73 applications. [like, for non-majors, they exclude householders]

The calculation used to decide which council is designated is based on PS2, which gives an advantage because it includes s73 in the denominator.

What's the problem ? These things work in our favour, I think.

RE: New designation for non-majors

2016-12-08T15:05:56Z

any idea how we distinguish the section 73 applications in the statistics recorded.

we record section 73 applications under the original PS code number. I can exclude them for our internal stats but they are reported in the PS 1/2 reurn as the original ps code reference. what does everyone else do?

RE: New designation for non-majors

2016-12-08T15:00:36Z

oops found the definition in the SI 2016 No. 944

so with the exception of details submitted following a permission in principle and applications to remove or vary a planning condition , non majors will be anything not a major which is an application for planning permission to develop land.

so excluding Section 73 applications that will give us PS codes 13 -21 inclusive

RE: New designation for non-majors

2016-12-08T14:59:36Z

I can't answer your question about legal definition. The live tables themselves say they relate to PS2 thusly

Q13: minor dwellings

Q14: minor offices / R&D / light industry

Q15: general industry / storage / warehousing

Q16: retail and service

Q17: traveller caravan pitches

Q18: all other minor developments

Q20: change of use

Q21: householder developments

RE: New designation for non-majors

2016-12-08T14:41:12Z

Hi I am having some problems with definitions in the legislation

I am happy with the definition of major as it is the normal one

however, the new SI 2016 No. 944 defines non major development as meaning "development which is not major development"

I have found the explanatory memorandum to the Improving Planning Performance document which does help with some things but I cannot track down the legal definition of a non major application.

In theory it is going to be all applications with a PS Code greater than 12 but excluding applications not made under the 1990 planning act and certificates of lawfulness but where legaly is this defined?

any ideas