Annex 1: Performance Indicators for 2000/2001:
Planning
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors supports
the Best Value reform of local government. We believes that if
they are properly implemented, supported and audited, the reforms
should go a long way to making the delivery of local services
more efficient and responsive to people's needs.
Performance indicators must be based on clearly
identified and agreed criteria, with information submitted in
a format that can be directly compared. The simpler the format
of information required the easier it should be to directly compare
it. However our main concern is that too simple a set of criteria
could mean that the very different situations faced by different
planning authorities would not be reflected in the results submitted.
Ensuring that the information submitted by local
authorities is in a correct format is vital. The RICS would be
happy to work in partnership with other organisations, such as
yourselves, the RTPI and the Planning Officers' Society to promote
best practice in this area.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Percentage of new homes built on previously developed
land
Promoting development on "brownfield" sites
is a key policy objective of Government, which the RICS supports.
This indicator may be of use in helping to promote such development
and addressing concerns about the "over supply" of greenfield
sites. However flexibility will be required by those interpreting
the results, as there are wide variations between local authorities
on the supply of brownfield land, the demand for new homes and
land values.
Planning cost per head of population
The RICS has in general a concern about the
use of cost as a simple indicator. Planning must be seen as an
engine, rather than a barrier, to achieve social, economic and
environmental objectives. Therefore extra costs may be required
to ensure the best outcome in the fastest time.
The number of planning applications submitted
to a planning authority does not depend on the population covered
by it. We would expect for example areas with a large amount of
market interest to have a greater number of planning applications
made.
In addition the complexity and therefore the
associated costs, of planning applications, is not a reflection
of the population. We would, for example expect town centres,
which often have low population levels, to have more complicated
planning applications. This is especially true if local authorities
aim to meet the objectives of the new planning guidance on housing,
promoting mixed used developments and the conversion of commercial
property to residential.
We would suggest a better indicator would be
"Planning cost per application". Such information should
include categories for the type of application, eg major commercial,
minor commercial, household. Our only concern about a "Planning
cost per application" indicator is that it may lead to the
submission of more applications if there is a simple calculation
based on the number of applications submitted versus overall cost
of the planning department. Pre-application stage discussions,
with an indication for a refusal given at this earlier period,
could be discouraged to ensure a larger number of planning applications.
Number of advertised departures from the statutory
plan as a percentage of total permissions granted
This performance indicator is supported as it
reinforces the plan-led system. However, to allow comparisons
between planning authorities, there needs to be a uniform interpretation
of when an application should be advertised as a departure. Further
clarification is needed of when applications should be advertised
as a departure.
As the plan may become outdated, not reflecting
updated policy objectives and market situations, care should be
taken that the indicator does not become a barrier to new and
innovative ideas.
Percentage of applications determined within eight
weeks
This is a well established indicator aimed at
identifying the efficiency of the local authorities. A key problem
that has been highlighted is that time constraints discourages
local authorities from entering into negotiations. The indicator
should theoretically lead to greater pre-application discussions,
which the RICS has long advocated as a means of achieving a more
efficient planning process. The recent Local Government Association/DETR
Planning Concordat called for project proposers to enter into
pre-application discussions. Many commercial developers are keen
to do just this, but local planning authorities, due to a lack
of resources, are unable to offer this service. Planning applications
are submitted and then refused before the eight week deadline
is reached. Planning applications than have to be resubmitted,
slowing the process down.
Average time taken to determine all applications
As with the last indicator this may lead to
a greater refusal rate. It also fails to recognise the scale of
the applications made, which can range from proposals for a supermarket
to a house extension.
Percentage of applicants and those commenting
on planning applications satisfied with the service received
We support this indicator, though care will
be needed to ensure a representative sampling of the different
types of service offered, for example major and minor development
proposals.
April 2000
| 
