This is the Planning Quality Framework report for Council A030. It tells the story of the performance of the council's Planning Service taking account of:
The report includes some bar charts, line graphs and boxplots (guide to box plots). In the line graphs your council is represented by the thicker coloured line and your 'trend' is the thick red line. The overall trend, the average trend of all your comparator group, is indicated by the thicker, darker grey background.
The report has individual sections which are useful but on their own don't tell the whole story. The real story emerges when different parts of the report are knitted together. For example, how many councils, in response to a performance culture based on speed and targets, have carried out expensive process reviews just to make quicker decisions, and fail to notice that they say yes more than their peers, create less waste and have happier customers? That is the essence of this report - a much more rounded story of what is happening and what direction things are heading in.
This shows the volume of applications by type of development that your service handles, the fee income, and the trends in these measures over time.
Purpose: Understanding the volume of applications for each type of development over submitted quarters
As a collective (all of the comparator group combined):
Purpose: To understand how your work and fee income compares with your peers.
This is the count and fee income of applications received, grouped by development type. This is an 18 month figure:
The same information as a table (averaged into a month). Note that there are two lines for each development type, one for the count and one for the fee:
Purpose: To understand how the counts of the various sorts of applications are changing over time.
This plot uses a sample set of 1000 applications so each council has the same count.
This part of the report looks at how often applications are approved and refused.
Purpose: How often are you saying 'yes' to and how does that compare with other councils?
This is the same information broken out by development type. For every 1000 applications of all types that you decide, you refuse this many of each type:
This part of the report looks at how much work gets withdrawn and how much additional work results from the original application e.g discharge of conditions.
Purpose: Rates of withdrawal are a 'waste' indicator. Where possible they should be reduced to near zero.
This is the same information broken out by development type. Figures represent a count of withdrawn applications from the sample set of 1000 applications.
Looking at the work involved in processing potentially avoidable zero fee applications (excluding heritage and tree applications that you have to process with no fee).
Purpose: , Zero fee applications are another 'waste' indicator. Where you can do so you should be looking to reduce their numbers.
The first graph shows your zero fee trend over time in comparison with your peers.
The second graph shows the time cost in days to do applications without a fee. For every 1000 applications, you do this amount of work without a fee:
This is a table of the number of days spent doing work without a fee. This is not a total for the year - it is for your sample set of 1000 applications so an annual value will be different.
This part of the report looks at the investment value that development proposals represent, and how well matched the resources (FTEs) are to the volumes of work.
Purpose: The following 3 plots follow the same form. These plots are organised by when the application is received (not determined).
This is still in test !
The 'FTE estimate' plot is based on PAS 2012 Benchmark data. From this we know the average amount of hours it takes the average council to process different types of application, for example, a householder application takes 9 hours.
The FTEs represented here include all planning staff involved in handling an application â€“ administrative, technical, planners. We take your applications counts, multiply that by the hours we know it takes to process an application, then derive a headcount of planning staff required to handle your current workload.
The 'Investment estimate' plot is based on the build costs for different types of development - these are just simplistic estimates for now and the plot is just here to illustrate the concept.
Estimated build costs means an estimate accepted by the local authority as being a reasonable amount that would be charged by a person in business to carry out such work (as per building control).
This section of the report focuses on processing times - summarising how long the validation and determination of applications took.
Purpose: Shows the proportion of applications received that can be worked on straight away.
For your sample set of 1000 cases there is a delay while the cases are all declared valid. (applications that were valid on receipt should have a zero delay) This has been divided by 7 to give a total weeks of delay:
The next 3 datasets use 'Boxplots'. Boxplots allow you to see how much variation there is in a set of data - something that a single number like an 'average' doesn't show you. Click here for a quick and simple guide to boxplots.
Purpose: Shows the number of days it takes for applications to be made valid. A box-plot displays a range of local_values (days here). If you can't see a line in the middle of the box plot then your median local_value is zero (that means that at least half of the applications received are made valid on the day they arrive which is good).
Purpose: Shows the number of days between applications being declared valid and a decision notice being issued.
For review: As previous box plot plus
Purpose: Shows the number of days between applications being received and a decision notice being issued.
This section is under test. If your group took an equal share of all the development, and carried on processing it in the same way, how long would you each take compared to the average ? For every application we sum the difference between you and the mean for each category of development. Low is good.
And broken down by type of development:
This is a draft report for the Planning Quality Framework. It is version 0.8 last changed on 2015-04-19. It was generated on 2015-04-19.