[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.
