The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION PAPER

GENERAL COMMENTS

12. A number of the responses received provided general comments on various sections of the consultation document as opposed to responding the questions that were posed throughout the document.

13. A point made by a number of respondees was that recognition has to be given to the fact that not all local authorities are the same. They all have their own characteristics and challenges. There is a need for planning assessment teams to adopt a flexible approach to evaluation but also to prioritise where it is most important for Scotland to have highly performing planning authorities who respond quickly to proposals for development or redevelopment.

14. It was seen as imperative that the framework is made into a workable tool for all involved in the planning process. A complex system would only absorb too much of the resources of the planning staff away from core functions. In order to avoid this, it was suggested that extensive and thorough consultation be undertaken with local authority planning staff to ensure that the system proposed will be reasonable and effective.

Question 1 - Do you agree that there should continue to be a range of quantitative and qualitative measures for monitoring performance?

15. The use of both quantitative and qualitative measures was welcomed by the majority of respondees. However it was felt that the emphasis should be placed more on qualitative measures particularly those which measure the final product or outcome. The final product of planning should take into account the value that the planning officer has added, quality in terms of design, materials or form of development or meeting concerns of the objectors. One suggestion was that this could be measured by interviewing those who live, work and play in the area.

Question 2 - What other effective ways of monitoring performance could be used?

16. A number of the responses proposed the use of customer surveys as a way to evaluate the service that is being provided by the Planning Authority. Suggested ways to measure the perceptions of the service provided include: the review of complaints made; customer surveys; exit questionnaires for users; and the monitoring of planning decisions and outcomes. This could be in the form of a standard pro-forma which would ascertain feedback on service received. Those interviewed could also include selected community and volunteer organisations as well as those who object to planning applications.

17. Comments were made that indicators relating to speed did not equate with quality. Speedily taken decisions may be poor decisions. At the same time it was also noted that time taken to produce development plans and process planning applications had almost lost public confidence.

18. It was suggested that production and agreement of the annual housing land audit with house builders and Homes for Scotland should be monitored. The number of planning agreements signed between authority and developers could also be included as a performance indicator as well as monitoring the amount of brownfield land brought back into productive use.

Question 3 - What are your views on the proposed set of performance measures in the annex?

19. There was some consensus that the number of indicators was too large and would create an additional burden on planning authorities. There was concern that the number of indicators contradicted the statement made in paragraph 8 of the Consultation paper that the measures should "not result in duplication or add significantly to burdens on local authorities". Some refinement of the indicators was seen as beneficial. This would involve consideration of what each indicator will demonstrate, who it is used by and what it is used for.

20. A number of the suggested indicators were seen as a checklist and without customer feedback were considered less meaningful. Where the data being sought was just a figure, there should be a way of providing context to explain the figure in more detail. It was also suggested that percentages should be used where possible, as this would give a more meaningful context to the figures. Comments on each of the performance measures are listed below.

21. Consideration needed to be given to those authorities producing a joint Strategic Development Plan. If the plan was not complete at time of assessment this would reflect badly on authority being assessed, however the other authorities involved in preparing the SDP would be let off the hook.

Performance

22. A general point was made that measures that are based on timescales can be affected by third parties and are outwith the council's control. It was argued that those applications that require third party input should be excluded from the 2 month deadline. Listed building consents that need to be dealt with by Historic Scotland are an example of those which should not recorded or recorded in a different way, such as from the date of receipt to the date of submission to Historic Scotland. Similarly, it was felt that the Scottish Executive should be bound by a timetable for determination of National Developments.

23. Comments on the 4 elements of Performance identified in the consultation paper are set out below.

(1) Development Planning

24. There were concerns that the use of indicators such as age of plan and time taken to prepare plan may be influenced by the time taken at planning inquiry and that this may be outwith the Council's control.

(2) Development Management

25. There was concern that too much emphasis was being placed on speed and that added value needed to be identified. At the same time there was seen to be a danger of trying to measure too much. It was considered difficult in some cases to decide whether an indicator was measuring good or bad performance, for example, enforcement activity in the form of notices served could be a measure of failure or just a lack of effort.

26. One response felt that time targets should be in weeks not months for the sake of precision.

27. Suggestions for additional indicators include:

• Add indicator "% of householder applications in 4 weeks".
• Add indicator - "Number of EIA cases and % processed in x weeks"
• Add indicator - "Number of LB/ CA cases and % processed in x weeks"
• Add indicator - "Number of applications for major developments and % processed in x weeks".

(3) Appeals

28. It was felt that the number of appeals should be expressed as a percentage of total applications. There was some concern that indicators based on appeals failed to take account of councils' efforts to negotiate amendments to applications to make them acceptable.

29. Suggestions for additional measures include:

• Add indicator "No. of appeals against non-determination"
• Add indicator "No. of appeals against conditions"
• Appeals to be reported by Council area.
• Need for targets for determination of appeals by SEIRU and LRB's.

(4) Enforcement

30. The framework needed to recognise what the focus within a council might be on negotiating resolutions to problems rather than on instigating formal action and this would affect how the council fared against the performance measures. It was felt that counting the number of complaints against the number of enforcement actions could give conflicting information. It should be made clear that a successful resolution of a complaint would be submission of a retrospective application or cessation of the unauthorised activity. The fewer cases that require the service of Notices of whatever kind, the more successful the enforcement service would be.

31. Respondees considered that the number of appeals against enforcement notices should be expressed as a percentage of total complaints.

32. Suggestions for additional measures include:

• Add indicators to identify a target time for determination of whether or not a breach of control has taken place following "complaint" (e.g. 4 weeks) and a target time for taking action (e.g. 8 weeks).
• Number of planning contravention notices ( PCN's) served.

Process

33. Comments on the 3 elements of Process identified in the consultation paper are set out below.

(1) Development Planning

34. Suggestions for additional measures include:

• Add indicator - "Evidence of corporate engagement with, and ownership of, the Development Plan".
• Add indicator - "Protocol in place for internal consultee engagement".

(2) Development Management

35. Suggestions for additional measures include:

• Amend indicator - "Scheme of delegation in place which is in line with the principles set out in SE guidance".

(3) Enforcement

36. Suggestions for additional measures include:

• Amend indicator - "Enforcement Charter in place which is in line with the principles set out in Scottish Executive guidance
• Amend indicator - Number of appeals should be expressed as a percentage of total.

37. Some of the indicators in regard to e-planning will be dependent on the Executive's timetable and so councils should not be held accountable.

People

38. Some responses called for a clear approach to recruitment, retention and involvement in performance management.

39. The extent of training members was seen as important. One respondee believed that committee members would be less likely to make decisions contrary to officer recommendations on waste development if they were adequately trained on the need for sustainable waste management and the various technology options available.

Participation

40. It was felt that an indicator was required to report on local communities' willingness to participate proactively in the planning process. Often local communities can refuse to engage with a developer as a means of stalling the planning process.

Further refinement of the terms used and on appropriate standards to be employed.

Formal approach to the reporting of the community and stakeholder involvement in the planning process was welcomed.

Policy

41. In addition to those areas identified in the consultation paper, it was felt that other areas of policy where national guidance is given through SPPs should also be included in performance measures. One example given was adherence to national guidance on protection of town centres, in terms of how successful the planning authority is in delivering the national policy objectives.

Product

42. It was considered that the sustainable development indicators proposed were so broad that it was difficult to envisage how they would provide any real measure of planning authority performance on sustainable development. This area needed to be given more consideration. It was felt that the existence of policies and evidence of decision making that contributes to sustainable development were not indicators of the product of planning. It was suggested that a better indicator would be evidence of delivery of sustainable development and avoidance of developments that are unsustainable in terms of location or design. The assessment process should assess outcomes as well as process.

43. There was disappointment from one respondee that indicators did not include any measures on biodiversity. All public bodies have a general duty to further the conservation of biodiversity as required by the conservation (Scotland) act 2004. It was felt that the performance assessment framework offered an opportunity to assess how well planning authorities were carrying out this duty, including indicators that assessed that there was evidence of plans and decisions that furthered the conservation of biodiversity. Another respondee was surprised that there were no indicators on climate change.

Perceptions

44. While a section on perceptions was not included in the Annex to the consultation paper, it was felt that this section was perhaps not necessary anyway, as the indicators that covered participation essentially addressed those of perceptions.

45. Other comments included that the role of statutory consultees was important and that the response times of statutory consultees should be recorded to ensure they comply with 28 day deadline for development management.

Question 4 - Do you have ideas for additional measures, particularly qualitative?

46. A common theme was that providing a narrative was usually more illustrative than statistics and figures. A possible commentary on quality and outcomes of the planning service could include:

• assessment of whether conditions are being discharged successfully
• timescales for signing s75 agreements following grant of planning consent
• evidence of partnership working to deliver development plan
• involvement of elected members in plan preparation
• involvement of planning officers in benchmarking groups or other inter-authority peer support mechanisms
• results of customer satisfaction surveys
• effectiveness of engagement with communities
• assessment of new development on the ground against design principles.

47. Examples were given of systems that are already in place in local authorities:

Qualitative information that is already recorded by Dumfries & Galloway Council includes:

• Were proposals improved as a result of pre-application discussions?
• Were amendments sought and obtained during the processing of the application?
• Were conditions attached to the resultant planning permission requiring improvements/amendments to the proposals?
• How many unacceptable developments were refused?

48. Dumfries and Galloway Council emphasised that the final question (in the above box) is seldom appreciated by the general public as they never see the harmful developments which were either refused, and so never built, or those which were amended to become acceptable. This could be used to provide a positive view of the planning system and help to instil public confidence.

The City of Edinburgh Council has adapted the quality of planning services checklist which is in place in England & Wales. This is used to self assess the quality of the planning services provided in Edinburgh. The checklist measures:

• Provision and appropriateness of advice to applicants
• the provision of pre-application advice
• access to specialist advice on design and historic environment
• a multi disciplinary approach to applications
• provision of an electronic service

49. The use of customer surveys is a recurrent theme throughout the responses. This was seen as a helpful way of assessing their expectations and perceptions of the planning service.

50. It was also suggested that Scottish Ministers should assess the importance placed on planning by councils, for instance, whether it is included in corporate plans along with specified corporate objectives. Criteria relevant to such objectives were suggested as: the level of resources and their distribution; the number of applications received/determined per development management case officer; the proportion of income from planning fees specifically directed to support the administration of development management service; and the number/percentage of applications approved contrary to officer recommendation.

51. The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 contains powers to place a duty for planning authorities to review all existing Tree Preservation Orders an additional indicator should be introduced to cover this.

Question 5 - Do you agree that there should be a rolling programme of general assessments and, if so, is the 5-yearly cycle appropriate?

52. While over a quarter of the responses did not express a view on this question, the 5 year cycle was supported by many of the other respondees as it would fit with the proposed new cycle of development plan preparation and ensure that recommendations from one assessment could be implemented and improved before the next one. More frequent than 5 yearly would present resource implications for both the Scottish Executive and local authorities. It was felt that regard should be given to other audits to avoid duplication of effort. Consideration should also be given as to how the assessment timescale would fit with the political cycle.

53. As well as the 5 year cycle, it was proposed that interim, random and unannounced assessments should take place to address any concerns raised at a previous assessment and also to avoid any peaks & troughs in performance. Performance could peak prior to an assessment to help improve Local Authorities overall score and then after assessment fall back to the previous level.

Question 6 - Do you support the proposed approach to determining whether Ministers should initiate a function-specific assessment or an assessment of patterns of decision making? What kinds of considerations should Ministers take into account in each case?

54. It was considered that intervention to perform function specific assessments should only be used sparingly and only where there was particularly poor performance or a clear issue of public concern. It might have to be used quite regularly if the power was to be used every time a development plan was not updated.

55. Similarly, one of the respondees felt that "if such a power were to be used every time there was a failure to meet a performance target on determining planning applications, then it would apply to most Councils."

56. Consideration needed to be given to the consistency of decision making in respect of the development plan and whether inconsistencies or an apparent excess of deviations from development plan could be justified and/or if the plan needs to be updated, decisions consistently being taken against officials advice.

57. While the number of applications approved against officer recommendation was already recorded, it was felt that additional monitoring would need to be put in place to record the amount of applications approved contrary to the development plan.

58. Another response stated that: "The council would be concerned about ministers becoming further involved in the local decision making process that is a fundamental tenet of elected local government as, in the main, planning decisions are devolved to local authorities to exercise a planning function at local level which is responsive to particular local circumstances."

59. It was seen as important that assessments were not triggered by an individual or body which harboured resentment resulting from a planning decision that had gone against them.

Question 7 - Do you agree that planning managers and others should be involved as advisers on the assessment team?

60. The majority of responses supported the involvement of planning managers in the assessment team. This was viewed as a positive thing for both the planning manager involved and the authority that was being assessed. It would allow for the sharing of good practice between both the assessment team and those being assessed. Planning managers should have the relevant knowledge and experience for assessments to be viewed positively.

61. Concerns about the involvement of planning managers centred around the resource implications, for example, the amount of time they would be required to be away from their authority and how this would affect the authority's performance. It was felt, therefore, that assessments needed to be short and focused.

62. One option, suggested by a number of the respondees was the use of recently retired senior planners or those who have taken early retirement. This had the benefit of them having the relevant knowledge and experience while not impacting on an authority's staffing levels.

63. A number of suggestions were made on advisers taking secondments to take part in the assessments. A broad range of options were expressed from short term, for example, 1 or 2 assessments to longer secondments of 1-3 year terms. One existing example given was the Education Service whereby experienced head teachers are seconded for 1-2 years to the standards unit that visit and advise schools on a range of issues.

64. In terms of additional people who might act as advisers, suggestions were that others from community councils, regular applicants, agents, stakeholders, planning aid, chambers of commerce and laypersons could be involved in the assessment process. Advisers could be drawn from specialist bodies, especially when assessing areas such as design and sustainable development.

Question 8 - How should advisers be selected for involvement?

65. Planning authority staff acting as advisers should be selected to assess authorities of the same nature and size as the one in which they are employed. Experience of management of high performing organisations was seen as essential.

66. It was felt that selection should be open and competitive.

Question 9 - What other methods might be employed by the assessment team?

67. It was seen as important not to increase the workload on already stretched resources. As a result, the proposed self assessment, questionnaires, focus groups, floor walking and mystery shopper were seen by some to be sufficient.

68. The focus of assessment should not just be on average performance. For example an authority may make 90% of determination rates on time but 8% of failures arise within 1 team. There should be ways to flag this sort of issue and address it accordingly.

69. Other methods of assessment that were suggested include:

• general test calls to development management or development planning units
• assessing ease of online navigation to obtain local development plans, supplementary guidance or planning application forms electronically
• formally work shadowing officers from both development management and development planning sections.

70. It was also suggested by one response that an authority's business systems should be assessed using ISO 9001 - http://www.bsi-uk.com/Quality/Overview/WhatIsISO9001.xalter. ISO 9001 is the most commonly used international standard that provides a framework for an effective Quality Management System.

Question 10 - What other ways of marking performance could be used?

71. A balanced scorecard approach is one method that was supported throughout a number of the responses. While the 5 proposed markings were seen as satisfactory, they needed to be backed up with additional information to give them context and explain why a particular marking had been given. It was seen as important that benchmarks were known and local authorities made aware of them prior to assessment taking place including what will be considered weak, poor or good performance.

72. As stated in response to other questions, it was felt that more consideration was required as to how the quality of product should be measured.

73. One council had concerns that it was possible that a council with a poor development management assessment had nonetheless achieved major successes in town centre regeneration, brownfield redevelopment, job creation, inward investment, environmental improvements, prestigious partnership projects etc. It was felt that performance should therefore be marked on a range of planning functions and weighted as to the overall contribution to achieving planned outcomes.

Question 11 - Do you support the proposed approach to post-assessment action?

74. The proposed approach to post assessment action was supported by just under half of the responses received. However, a number of the responses felt that a 3 month deadline for submission of a report to address the recommendations of the assessment could be too short, particularly if the assessment recommended wholesale changes to the entire planning service within an authority, relating to staff and reporting issues.

75. Also, the need to possibly consult with staff and get agreement from members along with external consultation with stakeholders such as voluntary organisations, amenity bodies and community councils could mean that a 3 month deadline might be unobtainable. A six month period from the date of receipt of the report was seen by some as more appropriate, allowing for more detailed examination of the issues raised and effective resolutions considered and commenced. It was felt that assessment reports should also be published to keep stakeholders and public informed of progress.

76. Emphasis had to be on assisting and supporting poorly performing authorities. It was suggested that Ministerial involvement should only be considered when there was a consistently clear lack of improvement and where serious cause for concern had been identified.

Question 12 - How often should performance information be collected by the Scottish Executive?

77. There was a consensus that information needed to be as up-to-date as possible when published. Currently, information could be up to 2 years out of date by the time it is published.

78. More regular collection of data would allow for more up-to-date information to be published, however this should not create an additional burden on local authorities. The use of current computer systems to compile and submit data should be considered. The introduction of e-planning should also assist with the collection of performance information.

Question 13 - What issues might be raised by extending the amount of performance information collected and changing the way in which it is gathered?

79. Responses stated that efforts should be made to use existing systems to collect information emphasising that new systems and procedures might require additional resources. Collection of information should be done electronically where possible. If information was not readily available or it was not possible to automate it then this would result in additional work needing to be carried out by local authority staff. It was suggested that data collected could be based on a communal database system to allow a standard approach to be taken across Scotland. Issues were raised regarding the ease with which quantitative information could be collected compared to qualitative information.

80. It was suggested that local authorities should appoint a performance or best value officer to assist with the collection and collation of information.

81. The view expressed by most responses was that the time spent on monitoring performance and producing figures should not impact on day-to-day job, resulting in a decrease in performance.

Question 14 - What ways of sharing good practice would you find most useful?

82. The sharing of information was supported by all responses. A number of common suggestions to how this could be achieved were made throughout the responses:

• Publication on internet
• Benchmarking Groups
• e-learning opportunities based on case studies
• development of toolkits
• mentoring
• online discussion forums
• Highlighting good practice/improvements through awards
• Annual conference
• Self-assessment posted on the Internet along with performance figures
• Planning Advice Notes on best practice
• Half day seminars with neighbouring authorities with similar characteristics

83. A number of responses considered that the use of planning managers and senior planners on the assessment team should aid with information sharing.

Question 15 - What other measures might be used to support planning authorities?

84. The use of the Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning to reward and promote good practice was suggested by a number of respondees. This should reward those authorities that had shown significant improvement or were providing a consistently high level of service. It was felt that planner-led design improvements and officers providing good customer service should also be rewarded.

85. Other suggestions for planning authority support included:

• Further training for planners through the Planning Development Programme.
• Mentoring by a successful planning authority.
• Potential sharing of experienced staff for coaching and support purposes through short term secondments.

Question 16 - What sanctions might be appropriate against poor performance, particularly non-financial options?

86. The use of sanctions was not supported by the majority respondees. A view that was stated by one respondee and supported by others is:

"Sanctions of whatever type should only be considered as a court of last resort. The over-riding principle should be that Councils can and will improve service delivery through the self-evaluation or where appropriate through post-assessment action".

87. It was felt that sanctions could demoralise staff and drive down performance. Instead there should be an emphasis on providing advice and support to poorly performing authorities which is more likely to produce improvement.

88. One response stated that:

"The emphasis should be on helping and supporting authorities to achieve improvements where poor performance is an issue, rather than imposing sanctions."

89. Another respondee thought that practical support should be offered to poorly performing authorities to address any specific shortcomings. Only after such assistance and support with no improvement shown should sanctions be considered. If assessments are constructive and sharing of good practice is effective, sanctions should rarely be used. However, sanctions may retain some deterrent value to planning authorities and that ministers must be prepared to use powers that are introduced.

90. One suggested sanction was for Scottish Ministers to require authorities to allocate more resources to planning where required.

« Previous | Contents | Next »