BEST PERFORMING PLANNING AUTHORITIES - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Don't neglect your benchmark report, Caron. It contains lots of extremely useful information. And the next one will contain more 'performance' comparisons.

How do you define "best performing"? It's easy to make bad decisons quickly. I'd much rather wait a bit longer and get the right decison. Mike

Stroud – Gloucestershire We take a slightly different view on performance. We prescribe to a management practice known as systems thinking (Vanguard Group) which questions the validity of performance targets. Research has shown that PIs have a tendency to result in unforeseen consequences. For example another authority we know of (no names) was in the top 5% for hitting its 8 and 13 week targets and was held up as an example of high performing. However, its reputation with the construction industry was appalling. Investigations showed that the Council determined applications at 7 weeks 6 days to hit the target, but with little regard for quality and consequences. Applications which were not bad enough to refuse were approved, and those not good enough to approve were refused. Quality of the built form deteriorated from the premature approvals, but more importantly (arguably) for efficiency of the service, performance got worse. It was a downward spiral; for those applications prematurely refused most came in as free resubmissions. This gave a second 8 week (or 13 week) negotiation period to get it right, but cost the authority in double handling the application for no extra money. The schemes took at least twice as long to permit, and the economy was being adversely affected. But the authority was proud of its NPI figures, blind to the affect its slavery to PIs was having.. Stroud is by no means a star performer, and I would not like to give the wrong impression; but by working with the architects and communities, we feel we get schemes of better quality, they just take a little longer. Our committee schedule is in single figures, and often under five applications per meeting. We only take applications where there will be a perceived benefit from the committee debate and community involvement. We have public speaking, and our meetings are webcast in real time, and available as archives. This has a side benefit of helping us successfully defend judicial reviews, as we can refer to the debate, rather than merely the minutes. I wish you luck in your research. Phill

Agree with Mike and Phil. Focus on your own service rather than comparing yourself against others. Incidentally, you may wish to bear in mind that applications for approval of details reserved by condition are an integral part of the planning/development management process and ought to be included with the assessment on performance.

Echo both points above.Beware the rush to be cheap/quick.Important starting places are understanding what's prompting you to be 'currently looking at' the service. Your post suggests that committee could be the focus so speeding up the parts of the process either side of them may not address a more fundamental issues like a poor scheme of delegation and/ 'unnecessary' call ins etc.

As always Martin, Martin and Richard, good points, well made. Michael, your views concur with so many of my clients. Our customer satisfaction survey is in the high 60's, which i think is excellent for a regulatory service. Planning Performance Agreements are also an excellent place to start on the big stuff, as the client may well have longer time scales that we percieve. Phill