This workshop, part of the PAS’s Facing the Future events challenged planners to think differently, and shift the focus from targets and development management process thinking towards better outcomes. ‘A return to the real skills and experience of planners is long overdue’ declared the programme.

Richard Davies of the consultancy Vanguard opened the workshop with a robust defence of the public sector. “There is a myth that the public sector can learn from the private sector – the reality is that both sectors need to think differently” Value, not efficiency or productivity is the name of the game.

Richard defended the view that Councils, not inspectorates or governments, know how best to manage themselves and their services. ‘National politicians do not quite understand the concept of localism’ advised Richard, ‘Authorities are the only organisations that can deliver it’.

Problems within the public sector?

• Central Government work in a ‘top-down’ way. Do not get taken in by contrary statements from government departments. They remove responsibility through independent monitoring and inspection, which removes the sense of ownership, and important part of ‘localism’.
• Some Chief Executives appear to not use planning strategically. Authorities often separate planning policy, development management and economic regeneration functions. This is not ideal.
• Richard illustrated this point with an example of a rural Council refusing permission to farmers to convert barns, whilst at the same time trying unsuccessfully to attract new businesses into the area. Planning must be used strategically.
• There is a belief that IT systems improve service and reduce costs, but this is not the case. Richard asked the workshop to think about the NHS database, National Identity Card, and other public sector IT projects, and whether they thought these initiatives were successful.

Richard warned against ideologically driven shared-services. ‘It is impossible to effectively share services without knowing the end to end costs of a system”. Outsourcing and IT became a fashionable answer to questions about efficiency. As a result we do not know that the end-to-end costs of a process is. If we do not accurately understand the actual cost, how can we know whether outsourcing, or shared-services, are an improvement?

• Targets create an artificial purpose, which is to meet targets. They stop us learning, and distort how we understand success, service outputs and their value.

How to improve:

• To start this process the planning service must ask itself an important question “What is the purpose of the planning service? This will help drive the direction of the improvement.
• The purpose of planning should be routed in geography, neighbourhoods and communities. What is best for a geographical area? Where is the evidence to support this? Some planners feel that their role is as a custodian. This is incorrect. Whilst planners’ thinking may reflect this view, the focus should be working with applicants to help them submit good schemes. The planning service must provide leadership, and not merely react.
• Remember that the purpose of your planning service is not to meet 8 – 13 week targets (or any other performance measure introduced in the future). Targets are simply the parameters within which you deliver a service. By thinking differently about processes and challenging the way we work, quality can be improved and capacity increased.
  • If you know the purpose, then you can better understand how to measure it.
  • If your purpose is clear then this should help direct your thinking
  • If you do not pay attention to your purpose then you will not meet it.
• Some planners find it difficult to quantify subjective topics, such as design. So don’t try – the best way to improve the design of schemes submitted to the Council is to talk about good design, both within the service and with developers. Lead a team discussion – what does ‘good design’ look like? What do ‘good outcomes’ look like? This will help you know what success is and how it should be measured.
• Pre-application discussions can really add value, but if Councils charge will they find some applicants submit, and make the necessary amendments during their free go?! If your pre-application process works then you should see higher numbers of good quality applications, and lower numbers of poor quality applications.What is your Council’s overall refusal rate for planning applications? Is this figure improving? If as many as 25-30% or applications are refused or withdrawn then this could suggest there is room for improvement. Such applications should be considered as ‘waste’, as many withdrawn and refused applications will be resubmitted at some stage, re-entering the system and taking up additional officer time. If you have a high number of refusals then how can you reduce this?
• Are you providing pre-application advice? If so then use this opportunity to negotiate in the Council’s position.
• Consider the use of an ‘approved agent scheme’, agents who you consider consistently submit good applications, and encourage other Agents to meet the simple criteria that you decide makes a good application. Make the public aware of this list.
• Pre-empt refusals by shifting your thinking ahead. Ask your teams the following question “Is there anything that we could have done to prevent a withdraw or refusal of this application? Analysing the process will help you learn and improve

Community relations

Each local planning authority has a key role to play in engaging with neighbourhoods and communities, promoting the role of planning and how it can make places better. Lead the discussions, don’t let them lead you.

• We know that consultations with communities can help reduce resistance to new schemes and proposals. If you feel you need to improve this area of your service then why not experiment with the ways in which you consult. Why not work with other agencies? Ask your communities, councillors and developers more open questions – ‘what matters to you?’ This encourages positive feedback.
• Developers may approach consultation as a way in which they can sell their scheme. Work with them to ensure the scheme sells itself by incorporating what is best for both the site, neighbourhood and wider community. Your evidence base will support this approach.
• Richard gave an example of a village near to where he lives. It had recently lost the post office/local shop. The local pub offered to provide these services and submitted an application to increase the size of the property to accommodate these important community services.
• The village is in a conservation area, and so the application was refused on these grounds. Local people now have to drive or take infrequent public transport to the next town to shop. In this case the planning system did not ask the villagers what they needed to keep these services local, it simply responded to the conservation issue.

Additional thoughts

Public sector budgets are under increasing pressure. To help defend yours against proposed cuts, find data that defends your service and demonstrates its value to the community. If you do not pay attention to the value, then the Council will pay attention to the cost.

Promote your service – work with the Council press teams and other agencies to engage with local media.

Facing the Future is a series of events by the Planning Advisory Service. For further reading visit: Planning Advisory Service and www.systemsthinking.co.uk. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Planning Advisory Service or the RTPI.

Author:

Chris Sheridan

Publisher:

The Royal Town Planning Institute

Date:

06-Jun-10

Categories:

Planners in the Workplace 

Sections:

Member Services

This article has been read 2021 times.