the planning performance framework€¦ · (full years) requirement: less than 5 years development...
Post on 17-Oct-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
THE PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
August 2013 - Version 3 issue
2
PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK ANNUAL REPORT 2011-2012
1. National Headline Indicators (NHIs)
Key outcomes 2012-2013 2011-2012
Development Planning:
age of local/strategic development plan(s) (full years) Requirement: less than 5 years
development plan scheme (DPS): on track? (Y/N)
Age of adopted development plan (both structure and local plans) 6 years. No - DPS (last approved in April 2013) indicates approximately 2 months off target.
Age of adopted development plan (both structure and local plans) 5 years.
Yes – on track with overall scheme
Effective Land Supply and Delivery of Outputs
effective housing land: years supply
effective housing land supply
housing approvals
effective employment land supply
employment land take-up
effective commercial floor space supply
commercial floor space delivered
Deficit of 222 units per year against annual housing requirement 1438 units
36 units
Availability of employment land : 141 ha, representing 21% of total available land. Total effective commercial floorspace: 360, 506sqft /33,492sqm We have no process for monitoring commercial
Deficit of 226 units per year against the annual housing requirement
1417 units
23 units
No data
3
floorspace delivered.
Development Management
Project Planning
percentage of applications subject to pre-application advice
number of major applications subject to processing agreement or other project plan
percentage planned timescales met Decision-making
application approval rate
delegation rate
11.2%
3
100%
97.2% 93.1%
12.5 3
100
88.6 94.6
Decision-making timescales Average number of weeks to decision:
major developments
local developments (non-householder)
householder developments
21.6 9.2 6.2
Not available
Enforcement
time since enforcement charter published / reviewed (months) Requirement: review every
2 years
number of breaches identified / resolved
1 year 11months
531/525
11 months
Contextual Statement 1. Planning Application Decisions Speed Over 2012/13 South Ayrshire has been the second fastest Planning Authority (on average) to determine a planning application. Performance is strongest on local developments, although determination of major developments is also in the top 6 of Planning Authorities. Open for Business South Ayrshire has the 5th highest approval rate of planning applications in Scotland with 97.2% of all planning applications approved. More importantly in demonstrating a commitment to economic development, 96.5 % of planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan. This is slightly lower than in 2011/12 when 98.5% of planning applications were approved in accordance with the development plan. This could be an indication of the increasing age of the existing development plan that is no longer providing an up to date policy position for just as many proposals. Together with information on negotiated ‘added value’ ( Annex I) the approval level supports a view that the Planning Service is successfully negotiating high quality developments, consistent with the development plan that are able to be approved.
4
Certainty The Service Standards for the Planning Service seeks to ‘front-load’ the planning application process by providing pre-application advice with the aim of giving certainty to the applicant and speeding up the planning process. To ensure the Council is meeting its commitments set out in the Service Standards the time taken to respond to requests for pre-application advice is monitored. This shows that for 12/13 the Planning Service was meeting its target of 21days to respond to pre-application enquires Research 12/13 Pre-Applications. The number of planning applications preceded by formal written pre-application advice is low. However, this does not include informal advice offered by meeting or telephone. Due to the frequency of these approaches, the Planning Service does not currently monitor informal pre-application advice. However, the ‘Customer Satisfaction Survey’ in Annex II indicate that 57% of respondents sought pre-application advice, both formal and informal. Where it is clear that a planning application could not be approved on its current basis, but that with some redesign it could be approved then the Planning Service encourages the planning application to be withdrawn and then resubmitted based upon advice given by the Planning Service. Work has been undertaken to analyse the number of planning applications that are withdrawn. This indicates that had those applications sought pre-application advice (and then followed that advice) that 93% of those applications would have been approved on first submission. This highlights the value of seeking pre-application advice and that if the uptake of pre-application advice was higher then the planning application process would be smoother and quicker. From this analysis it can be concluded that if a higher number of planning applications sought pre-application advice then there would be a higher number of approvals on first submission. Extending the take-up of pre-application advice is therefore an improvement action for 2013/14. 2. Development Planning Local Development Plan Over 2012/13 South Ayrshire has approved the Proposed Local Development Plan Plan (March 2013). Approval was accompanied with 3 Supplementary Guidelines (SGs) being approved in draft. The SGs cover: rural housing, historic environment and extension and alteration to houses. Because the LDP is a more strategic document than the existing local plan, these SG will fill the planning policy gap left by the local plan (which currently provides policies on these matters) when the LDP is adopted in 2014 and there is no longer a local plan policies in place to base planning decisions upon. Not only has the work on the SGs been completed ahead of the LDP process but they also have immediate benefit in that they are now finalised and operational in planning application determinations.
5
There has been slippage in the Development Plan programme in 2012/13 and there are a number of reasons for this: i) Engagement with Elected Members on the developing Proposed Plan was more intensive than anticipated in 2011/12. However, this has been beneficial to ensuring corporate ownership and ongoing effectiveness of the LDP. ii)two long term vacancies within the Development Planning Team. iii) Progression of 3 Supplementary Guidance in tandem with the LDP has also diverted available resources from progressing the LDP. The LDP has been project managed with a rolling project plan and progress on the project plan has been overseen by an elected member/officer LDP Board. This has been beneficial, but it thought that a more formalised project management arrangement with fixed regular updates provided to the Executive Director and Head of Service would be beneficial for the next LDP. Housing Land Supply Current market conditions have impacted significantly on the marketability of housing sites in the short/medium term. Although land is available for 7,002 housing units (Established Land Supply) there is currently an apparent shortfall in the land supply for new housing. An improvement in demand for housing, however, would result in a significant increase in the number of housing units being considered marketable within the Established Land Supply that could be developed over the next five years. The apparent shortfall would then no longer be exist.
6
PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 2. Defining and measuring a high-quality planning service
Open for
business
i) Commitment to the Development Plan - 96.5% of planning applications approved in
accordance with the development plan.
ii) Priority given to development proposals meeting economic and/or community benefit and
development plan delivery, including project management arrangements, single point of
contact arrangements and higher standard of pro-active engagement with key stakeholders,
and other Council services. Annex 3 ‘Priority Proposals 12-13’ lists development proposals
that received priority attention: 53 development proposals were prioritised on the basis of
significant economic benefit and a further 22 were prioritised on the basis of significant
social, community or placemaking benefit. Priority was given at all stages with the majority
involving actions to unlock development and not simply considerations through the
regulatory stages of a planning application.
iii) The ‘Customer Satisfaction Survey’ (Annex 2) indicates that 80% of respondents replied yes
to the Planning Service being ‘open for business’. The planning applications for the 20%
who replied ‘no’ have been reviewed: these were all developments that were contrary to the
development plan. In such instances it can be more difficult to approach those specific
proposals in a ‘open for business’ manner.
iv) A culture of providing certainty, front-loading the planning application process and
encouraging pre-application discussion, the standards for which are set out in a Pre-
application Protocol.
v) Policy in place on engagement standards as set out the Service Standard for Local
Developments and Major Developments
vi) Proportionate requests for information and reasonable risk management as evidenced in
Development Management Peer Review 2011-12
High quality
development on
the ground
i) The housing land strategy of the LDP has been developed to balance housing growth needs
with meeting community needs and having the placemaking of communities as the primary
selection tool for housing land allocations. Design Brief are required for all housing sites and
important design considerations for all housing sites have been identified.
ii) During 12/13 developed draft Supplementary Guidance that provide guidance on design
standards have been developed for: Rural Housing, Alteration and Extension to houses and
the Historic Environment.
iii) Advising and liaising on corporate environmental/placemaking initiatives 12/13 (Annex 3)
iv) Negotiated improvements to planning applications and value added by the Planning Service
as evidenced in Annex I: Report on Value Added. This demonstrates that in all major
developments there was improvement and value over and above that involved with simply
processing a planning application in a ‘regulatory’ way. With local developments added
value is more difficult to measure, but with 93% of planning applications that would have
been refused as submitted, the Planning Service has negotiated and provided advice to
change the proposals and were then able to secure an approval.
v) Promoted community understanding of planning decision making, including design
considerations through 2 meetings of the Planning Forum.
7
vi) Completed Character appraisals for Dundonald and Kirkoswald Conservation Areas to be
used to improve conservation design considerations in development management decisions
Certainty
i) 100% of planning applications preceded with a pre-app were approved
ii) Protocols in place for internal management of major developments: Planning Liaison with
Key Internal Stakeholders
iii) Evidence of business bodies engaged in development plan action programme LDP Action
Programme
iv) In the interests of maximising economic growth the ongoing performance and relevance of
the development plan is monitored on annual basis in terms of the percentage of
applications determined contrary to the development plan.
v) 100% of major developments made use of processing agreements
vi) High level of appeals determined by Department of Planning and Environmental Appeals
(DPEA) original decision upheld (i.e. that of the Council)– 4th highest in Scotland at 77.8% of
planning appeals dismissed.
vii) Consistency of planning decision making within the Council is important in providing
confidence to potential investors. Decisions of Local Review Body are monitored – a high
level of overturns would give concerns over the consistency of decision making within the
Council. For 12/13 this shows a significant drop in overturns rate from 11/12 and is
commensurate with the appeal upheld rate at DPEA 77.3%.
viii) One of the main reasons for delay in the planning application process is because the
planning application has not been able to be validated at first submission. Guidance note are
provided with the planning application pack, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the
applicant to ensure that the application submitted meets with essential statutory
requirements. A review of planning applications that were unable to be validated at first
submission has been untaken for 12/13. This shows that 69.8% of planning applications
were unable to be validated at first submission. The Top 5 reasons for Invalidity are:
1. Location plan not submitted or inadequate 2. Ownership Certificate not submitted or inadequate 3. Block plan not submitted or inadequate 4. No Statutory Fee 5. Site Address Missing from Online Application Form
The level of invalid submissions is higher than expected and if this were to be lessened this
would improve significantly the efficiency of the planning process. A workshop with
Architects and Agents will be arranged in 13/14 to provide guidance on the how to make
competent planning submissions.
Communications,
engagement and
customer service
i) A Customer Satisfaction Survey (Annex 2) was undertaken by telephone of a random sample
of applicants who had had their planning application determined in 12/13. This indicates:
100% very satisfied or satisfied with pre-application enquiry
95% very satisfied or satisfied with the planning application service
73% rated the Development Management service as excellent or good
80% rated the Planning Service as ‘Open for business’
The above % are averaged for each of the questions asked in each section. 20% of the
cases involved planning applications that were contrary to the development plan.
8
ii) The Planning Forum met twice and training was given on ‘How to Influence Planning
Decisions’. Planning Forum Meeting 2013
iii) The Architects and Agents Forum met twice during 12/13 including one session seeking
their engagement on emerging rural housing and extension and alteration to houses
Supplementary Guidance (SG). This session influenced the draft SG particularly on rural
housing conversions.
iv) The Council provides 9 guidance notes for prospective applicants and 19 Supplementary
Guideline for development, dealing with proposals from window replacement to
affordable housing development. All available on website. Also provide advice on-line.
New advice added in 12/13: ‘Do I need planning permission?’ and ‘What are Material
Planning Considerations?’
v) Planning section of website 12/13 audited and reviewed to ensure its complies with
Scottish Government guidance on web information for ease of reference
vi) Electronic communication – 3rd highest level of online submissions in Scotland.
vii) Website links provided to offer advice on when a planning application might be required
viii) Reviewed in 12/13 the structure and format of’ Reports of Handling’ of delegated
applications to provide for more succinct reports.
ix) Service Standards in place and Procedure Note on the Handling of Planning Applications
x) ‘Easy read’ versions of key documents provided and ‘Planning Jargon Buster’ provided to
all of planning forum and elected members and on display in Council offices and on
website.
Efficient and
effective
decision-making
i) As noted above South Ayrshire is the second fastest Planning Authority in Scotland to
determine a planning application. However, to assist with understanding why some
planning applications are slower than the average and to improve on this, an analysis of
planning applications that took longer than the target of 2 months has been undertaken
for 12/13.
Of the 748 planning applications determined 53 took longer than 2 months to determine..
It can be seen that the majority of cases relate to a necessary procedural requirement
and are therefore outwith the control of the case office, with the main reason for delay
arising being that the application required Regulatory Panel determination. 93% of
planning applications determined under delegation. This is around the average
delegation rate in Scotland.
ii) Monitoring of development management casework through bespoke tailored software
and Bi-weekly management updates.
Reason Requires
Regulatory
Panel
Determination
– timescales
of Panel
Requires
Notification
to the
Scottish
Government
Officer
Workload/annual
leave
commitments
Information
awaited from
applicant/consultee
Legal
agreement/bond
Other
Number 15 6 12 3 4 13
9
iii) Progress on the LDP monitored by LDP Board that also provide guidance on emerging
provisions and policies.
iv) Protocol for internal consultations in place including developed in draft for 12/13 a
Protocol between Planning and Legal Services With a finalised Protocol in place in 13/14
there will be an aim to reduce the 44 weeks it takes on average to determine a planning
application with a legal agreement.
v) E-planning introduced in 2009 has been used to improve the efficiency of determining
planning applications. In 2012/13 59.2% of planning applications were submitted on-line
and this is the 3rd
highest level in Scotland, the success of which can be attributed to
liaison between the Planning Service and the Architect and Agents Liaison Group.
Effective
management
structures
i) Management structure that is fit for purpose including ensuring the dedicated Priority
Projects Team and the appointment of project managers as required. Mobile staff unit
that is deployed to meet priorities with work programme and priorities monitored by
management on a bi-weekly basis.
ii) B-weekly Planning Management Team meetings with a standing item on the agenda
being ‘performance’.
iii) Priority proposals identified and managed (Annex 3).
iv) Strong collaboration with other Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway authorities and
established mechanisms in place for collaboration on Central Scotland Green Network,
Ayrshire and Galloway Biosphere and and windfarm planning,
v) Established and effective collaborative relationships with Key Agencies, including
achieving ‘Removal of Duty to Notify’ with Historic Scotland
Financial
management
and local
governance
i) Resources aligned to deliver the priorities of the development plan
ii) Service Standards ensure that time and resources are proportionate to value added from
planning process.
ii) Key staff attended Standing Order and Procurement training 12/13
Culture of
continuous
improvement
i) Planning Performance Framework embraced as an opportunity to identify areas for
continuous improvement and the Framework has been reviewed on a regular basis at
Planning Management Team meetings. Progress against improvement actions and
performance is a standing agenda item on the bi-weekly Planning Management Team
meetings.
ii) Peer Reviewer commented on the significant improvement of the Planning Service since
2008 and that it has embraced modernisation of planning and that there is a culture of
continuous improvement. Development Management Peer Review 2011-12
3. Supporting evidence Part 2 of this report was compiled, drawing on evidence from the following sources.
10
4. Service improvements: 2013-14 In the coming year we will:
Promote the success of seeking pre-application advice and liaise with Architects Forum to increase the rate of seeking pre-application advice prior to planning application submission.
Hold a Architect and Agents workshop to provide practical guidance on how to make planning application submissions that are able to be validated at first submission.
Liaise with newly opened Customer Contact Centre to provide key information: leaflets, guidance notes etc and high profile display of weekly list of planning applications
Develop ‘easy reads’ for Supplementary Guidance.
Finalise Single Point Contact Procedure Note
Hold Elected Member seminar to review ‘Development on the Ground’ and new policy on rural housing design.
Hold Elected Member seminar on Creating Jobs and Planning
Develop Protocols dealing with arrangements when the Council is the planning applicant and internal communication on prospective planning applications.
Sample survey of those people/organisations that engaged with the LDP as to the quality of service that was provided.
Delivery of our service improvement actions in 2012-13:
Committed improvements and actions Complete?
Develop Permitted Development Rights User Guides
Copies of Scottish Government Guide provided in Council offices
Links to Scottish Government Guide high profiled on website
Yes
Develop Single Point Contact Procedure Note
Draft completed pending consultation with Architects Liaison Group
Partial
Develop Service Standard for Energy Developments
Draft completed pending consultation with energy industry
Partial
Develop systematic monitoring for planning applications being determined
beyond 2 months
Research 12/13 Pre-Application
Yes
Sample costing of different types of planning applications and pre-
application advice
Research 12/13 Pre-Application
Yes
Sample pre-application to establish value added
Annex 1
YEs
11
Monitor the % of planning applications not validated at first attempt
See Part 2 ‘Certainty’ at para xiii
Yes
Hold Planner/elected member seminar on review ’Development on the
Ground’
Extent of elected member engagement on Proposed LDP presented
capacity issues with programming a session. Given interest in rural
housing this session in 13/14 will focus on this type of proposal.
No
Put in place mechanisms to monitor changes in commercial floorspace Partial
Develop ICT system to record the number of enforcement breaches aswell
as the number of cases taken up and enforcement notices issued
Yes
Survey of applicants – is the Planning Service in determining planning
applications ‘open for business’? Annex 2.
Yes
Appendix I PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK OFFICIAL STATISTICS Decision-making timescales
Average timescale (weeks)
Category
Total
number of
decisions
2012-2013
2012-2013 2011-2012
Major developments 7 29.3 39.2
Local developments (non-
householder)
Local: less than 2 months
Local: more than 2 months
332
(77.7%)
(22.3%)
9.2
6.7
17.8
21.9
Householder developments
Local: less than 2 months
Local: more than 2 months
390
(94.4%)
(5.6%)
6.2
5.8
11.4
12.9
Housing developments
Major
Local housing developments
Local: less than 2 months
Local: more than 2 months
2
69
(85.5%)
(14.5%)
10.8
10.5
7.0
30.8
27.3
28.1
Business and industry
Major
Local business and industry
Local: less than 2 months
Local: more than 2 months
0
91
(76.9%)
(23.1%)
0
8.5
6.7
14.6
64
-
20.8
12
EIA developments 0 0 55.2
Other consents* 10 7.3
7.5
Planning/legal agreements** 4 44.1 45.3
Local reviews 22 12.8 9.6
* Consents and certificates: Listed buildings and Conservation area consents, Control of Advertisement consents, Hazardous Substances consents, Established Use Certificates, certificates of lawfulness of existing use or development, notification on overhead electricity lines, notifications and directions under GPDO Parts 6 & & relating to agricultural and forestry development and applications for prior approval by Coal Authority or licensed operator under classes 60 & 62 of the GPDO.
** Legal obligations associated with a planning permission; concluded under section 75 of the Town and Country
Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 or section 69 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973
Decision-making: local reviews and appeals
Original decision upheld
Type
Total
number of
decisions
2012-2013
No. %
2011-2012
No. %
Local reviews 22 17 77.3 24 58
Appeals to Scottish Ministers 9 7 77.8 5 56
Enforcement activity 2012-2013 2011-2012
Cases taken up 531 566
Breaches identified 319* No data
Cases resolved 525 563
Notices served*** 5 4
Reports to Procurator Fiscal 0 0
Prosecutions 0 0
*** Enforcement notices; breach of condition notices; planning contravention notices; stop notices; temporary stop
notices; fixed penalty notices, and Section 33 notices Context
13
Provided in Parts 1 and 2
14
Appendix II
WORKFORCE AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION Appendix 2 is an integral part of the Annual Performance Assessment. It is designed to be a snapshot of staffing at 31 March 2013.
As at 31 March 2013
Please note - The figures do not have to be exact - we are looking for a snapshot of each authority
Tier?
Head of Planning Service (1) 1 2 3 4
4th
Managers (2) Main Grade Posts Technician Posts Office support/Clerical
No. Posts Vacant No. Posts Vacant No. Posts Vacant No. Posts Vacant Totals
Development Management 2
5 1 4 12
Development Planning 2
6 2 1 1 12
Enforcement Staff
1.5
1.5
Cross Service/Other Planning 2 2
15
Staffing profile Number
Under 30 2
30-39 8
40-49 10
50 and Over 6.5
Committees & site visits (3)
No. per year
Full Council committees 0
Planning Committees 10
Area Committees (where relevant) -
Committee site visits 1
LRB (4) 22
LRB site visits -
Budgets Budget Costs Income (7)
Planning Service Direct (5) Indirect (6)
Development Management 769,182 583,494 377,345
Development Planning 410,651 265,019
Enforcement
Notes on Completion:
1 In relation to service structure, 1st tier post holders are Chief Executives, 2nd tier are Directors, 3rd tier are Heads of service and 4th tier are
16
managers.
2 Managers are those people who are responsible for the operational management of a team/division. They are not necessarily line managers.
3
References to committees also include National Park Boards. Number of site visits are those cases where were visits carried out by committees/boards
4 This related to the number of meetings of the LRB, application numbers going to LRB are reported elsewhere.
5 Direct staff costs covers gross pay, including overtime, national insurance and the superannuation contribution. The appropriate proportion of the direct cost of any staff member
within the planing authority concerned spending 30% or more of their time on planning should be included in costs irrespective of what department
they are allocated to. (For example: Legal advice, Adminstration; Typing)
Exclude staff costs spending less than 30% of their time on planning.
6 Indirect costs include all other costs attributable to determining planning applications. Examples (not exhaustive) are:
- Accommodation
- Computing Costs
- Stationery
- Office machinery/Equipment
- Telephone charges
- Advertising
- T&S
- Committees
- Elected Members' expenses
- The relevant apportionment of Support Service costs
7 Income - include planning fees for applications and deemed applications. (exclude income from property and planning searches)
17
PART 6 - Glossary & Guidance
18
PLANNING PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK GLOSSARY Part 1: National Headline Indicators (NHIs) Interpretation Age of local/strategic development plan(s) (full years)
Number of full years passed starting from date(s) existing local or strategic development plan(s) were adopted /approved. Only the strategic development planning authority should provide the information on the strategic development plan.
Development plan scheme: on track?
On track if actions completed on time from last Development Plan scheme and there has been no slippage in forward-looking timetable set out in last scheme. Provide information in the text box to explain reasons for any slippage that has occurred.
Effective housing land supply
Position as at 31 March (or most recent annual figure held, if different date). Land on which residential units can be completed and available for occupation, as defined by paragraph 55 of Planning Advice Note 2/2010: Affordable Housing and Housing Land Audits. Expressed as number of years and number of units supply, and also number of units approved.
Effective employment land supply
Position as at 31 March (or most recent annual figure held, if different date). Marketable land that meets business requirements, can be serviced or serviceable within 5 years, be accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, and has a secure planning status.
Effective commercial floor space supply
Position as at 31 March (or most recent annual figure held, if different date). Land comprising suitable and viable sites in terms of size, location and availability within a reasonable time period.
Applications subject to pre-application advice
Planning applications decided during the year on which the planning authority had provided pre-application advice to the applicant normally including written advice.
19
Number of applications subject to processing agreement or other project plan
Applications decided during the year for which there had been a clear project plan, shared and understood and agreed between the applicant and planning authority, including a scheduled timetable for handling of the application.
Application approval rate Delegation rate
Percentage figures; to be provided by the Scottish Government (Analytical Services), drawn from the data provided by planning authorities.
Decision-making timescales Average number of weeks from receipt of a valid planning application to decision. Figures to be provided by the Scottish Government (Analytical Services), drawn from the data provided by planning authorities.
Time since enforcement charter published / reviewed
Position as at 31 March. The number of months since the authority’s enforcement charter was last published or reviewed and re-published.
Number of breaches identified / resolved
Matters which the planning authority has recognised to be breaches of planning control during the year; along with a record of identified breaches that have been resolved either through negotiation or compliance with more formal enforcement action.
1
ANNEX 1 - VALUE ADDED BY THE PLANNING SERVICE TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Explanation
‘Added value’ tries to measure that extent to which the planning application process negotiates
improvements or secures other value over rather that which would be achieved by simply processing
the planning application in a regulatory manner. It attempts to measure the value that has been added
by the Planning Service (and other supporting services eg Legal) to a planning application over and
above the proposals that would otherwise have been submitted.
Added value from planning applications in 12/13 is provided below:
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
During the period 1st April 2012 – 31
st March 2013, eight planning applications falling under the
category of Major Development were determined.
Added Value Criteria
The table demonstrates value added (by number) to Major Development planning applications during
both pre-application and assessment of Development proposals.
Added Value Criteria No of cases
Added Value Criteria No of cases
Improved Design 4 Noise mitigation 3
Improved Layout 4 Flood Mitigation 1
Open space provision 3 Sustainability 5
Play facility 4 Walking/cycling 5
Residential amenity 4 Road Safety 3
Utility/infrastructure 3 Sustainable transport 2
Visual amenity 4 Affordable housing on site 1
Built heritage 2 Developer contribution-Affordable housing off site
1
Archaeology 2 Developer contribution-Education 1
Ecology 4 Developer contribution-Community Facilities
1
Landscape 4 Aerodrome safeguarding 3
SUDS 2
With four of the applications pre-application discussions resulted in higher quality development
proposals being submitted at that point. Pre-application discussions have ranged from providing
applicants with guidance on procedural and legal matters, through to assistance on detailed
masterplan and design issues.
To help provide a deeper illustration of value has been added 3 case studies are provided below.The
first looks a ‘added value’ whilst the other look at value secured through an approach of being ‘open
for business’ and ‘speedy determination’.
Case Study 1 – Improvement through negotiation : Hannah Research Institute 11/00390/APPM
Change of use of existing research building to form 22 dwelling flats and erection of 43 dwellinghouses - Hannah Research Institute Ayr,
2
VALUE FACTORS
Example of Improvement
1. IMPROVED DESIGN Design amended significantly to reflect form and style of the existing Hannah building
2. IMPROVED SITE LAYOUT Created strong physical and visual connection to St Quivox and formal village green
3. OPEN SPACE PROVISION Secured an attractive and overlooked 'village green' which gives the area a distinct character and identity
4. PLAY FACILITY PROVISION (ON-SITE) Secured play equipment in a well connected part of the site
5. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY/PRIVACY Reorientation of units to enhance residential amenity
6. UTILITY/INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION Retention of path between Hannah and lower part of site / strong path connection to village
7. VISUAL AMENITY Sensitive peripheral planting to maintain setting of St Quivox, while revealing farmhouse
8. BUILT HERITAGE Retain locally important Hannah building / protect and enhance setting of St Quivox conservation area
9. ARCHAEOLOGY N/A
10. ECOLOGY Nature conservation conditions regarding protection of bats and birds
11. LANDSCAPE Tree protection and substantial additional landscaping
12. SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE Condition requiring compliance with SUDS manual
13. NOISE MITIGATION Condition regarding internal noise levels
14. FLOOD MITIGATION N/A
15. SUSTAINABILITY Placemaking, Tree protection and path link retention / creation
16. ENCOURAGING WALKING/CYCLING Retain path / create path to village / safe path to new bus stop
17. ROAD SAFETY Upgrade footpath on B743
18. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT Travel pack to houses, path direct to bus stop, new bus stop / shelter on B743
19. AFFORDABLE HOUSING – ON SITE N/A
20. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION – AFFORDABLE HOUSING –COMMUTED SUM
Commuted sum received for affordable housing
21. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION – EDUCATION
N/A
22. DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION – COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Bonds for play equipment and landscaping
23. AERODROME SAFEGUARDING Bird hazard control plan
Case Study 2 ‘open for business’ Erection of 12 anaerobic digesters, 8 storage tanks Land To North East of Ladywell Avenue, Girvan. Ref: 13/00528/APPM Commentary: This is a major development on land zoned for industrial development in the local plan. The positive approach of the Planning Service to this proposal involved early engagement, site meetings to explain clearly the planning policy context, procedural issues, information requirements and which consultees would be key. A processing agreement was then drafted by the Planning Service which clearly set out how the information we would require and the timescales that would be involved, taking into account the lead in times for Regulatory Panel. The applicant signed up to this processing agreement and the application was determined more than 2 months before the end of the statutory 4 month timescale allowed.
3
The applicant’s Chief Architect / Design Co-ordinator commented as follows; “We have now received the formal decision notice for the above and would like to take this opportunity to thank you for our assistance and cooperation in processing this application. I appreciate that we set you some challenges in achieving the proposed timescale but we are delighted that a successful conclusion has been reached. Thank you once again. “
Case Study 3 – ‘Speedy decision’ - Planning permission in principle for erection of residential development and associated works - Neptune Works, West Sanquhar Road, Ayr, KA8 9HP Ref: 12/01457/PPPM Commentary: This is a major residential development proposal on a large brownfield site. The Planning Service engaged positively with the applicant in the form of detailed pre-application meetings and advice concluding with the preparation of a processing agreement. Processing of the application was prioritised and the positive dialogue with the applicant continued in order to resolve a consultee objection (flood risk). The applicant was regularly updated on application processing and provided an opportunity to consider the recommended draft planning conditions to ensure that there were no obvious issues that may lead to insurmountable issues post-approval. The applicant’s agent commented as follows; “Just a quick email to say thank you for focussing on finalising reporting and drafting conditions for the East Park Road application last week” and “Thanks for taking the application to the panel yesterday. The team is buoyed that the application was approved with such positive comments from panel members.” PART 2 – LOCAL DEVELOPMENTS
The Planning Service Standard for Local Development Encourages pre-application discussion to
ensure that planning applications are submitted with the full benefit of advice, minimising the extent of
negotiation and change through the planning application process. It is therefore not possible to
measure the value added in the same way as is possible for major developments because it is
expected that planning applications will not change from that submitted.
One way of measuring added value would be to assess the changes made to proposals between pre-
application and application stage. This was explored, but it was concluded that this would be a
resource intensive task to undertake. Instead an easier way to measure added value is look at the
extent to which planning applications that are unable to be approved, as submitted, are then
withdrawn and are then resubmitted are then able to be approved. It can be seen from the facts below
that 12.4% of all planning applications there is ‘value added’ from advice that turns an unacceptable
development into a development that can be approved.
Total planning application 12/13 = 1,249
Number of planning application withdrawn and resubmitted = 155
% of resubmissions that were approved = 93%
Annex 2 – Customer Satisfaction Survey 12/13 Results Summary
Explanation
Customer Satisfaction Surveys were carried out by phone on Wednesday 18th September.
Applications were chosen randomly by selecting every 8th application in the Idox system.
Question 1 - Did you contact the Planning Service before you submitted your application?
57.1% said Yes. 8
35.7% said No. 5
7.1% did not respond. 1
Question 2 - Did your contact take the form of a formal pre-application enquiry?
21.4% said Yes. 3
28.6% said No. 4
50% did not respond. 7
Question 3 - How easy did you find the pre application enquiry?
One response “Clear, improved by meeting”
Question 4 - How satisfied were you with:
Information & Advice you received?
o Very Satisfied 2
o Satisfied 1
o Dissatisfied 0
o Very Dissatisfied 0
The quality of the advice given?
o Very Satisfied 1
o Satisfied 2
o Dissatisfied 0
o Very Dissatisfied 0
The time period within which this was provided?
o Very Satisfied 2
o Satisfied 1
o Dissatisfied 0
o Very Dissatisfied 0
Question 5 - Did the advice you received affect the content of your submission
21.4% said Yes. 3
0.0% said No. 0
78.6% did not respond. 11
Planning Application Stage
Question 6 - How satisfied were you with:
The registration of your application?
o Very Satisfied 4
o Satisfied 8
o Dissatisfied 0
o Very Dissatisfied 0
The ease which you were able to contact the planning officer dealing with your case?
o Very Satisfied 3
o Satisfied 9
o Dissatisfied 0
o Very Dissatisfied 1
The way the planning service communicated issues to you relating to your application?
o Very Satisfied 2
o Satisfied 10
o Dissatisfied 0
o Very Dissatisfied 1
Including 3 comments:
Officer: info could have been asked for and then contact applicant/agent proactively. Assist
with targets - Application over a year to determine.
Officer asked for Certificate of Lawfulness
Slow to reply, months after initial meeting
Decision Making Stage
Question 7 - How satisfied were you with:
The time period within which your application was considered?
o Very Satisfied 4
o Satisfied 8
o Dissatisfied 0
o Very Dissatisfied 1
The “report of handling” prepared by the planning authority on your application?
o Very Satisfied 3
o Satisfied 5
o Dissatisfied 0
o Very Dissatisfied 0
That the final decision taken was consistent with the development plan?
o Very Satisfied 3
o Satisfied 7
o Dissatisfied 1
o Very Dissatisfied 0
Including comments:
Flue not gone ahead - property remains derelict, not paid.
Adrian Cooke named date and focus. Very good review.
Quality of Development Management Service
Question 8 - How would you rate the service against the following:
Quality of the advice provided?
o Excellent 3
o Good 7
o Average 1
o Poor 1
o Very Poor 1
The professionalism and courtesy of the staff?
o Excellent 5
o Good 7
o Average 0
o Poor 0
o Very Poor 1
The clarity of forms and guidance offered to applicants on the council’s website?
o Excellent 1
o Good 9
o Average 2
o Poor 0
o Very Poor 0
Other planning authorities you have dealt with?
o Excellent 1
o Good 8
o Average 2
o Poor 0
o Very Poor 1
Open For Business
Question 9 – The Planning service wishes to support the economic development of South Ayrshire
by being proactive and efficient in the determination of major and strategic applications. Do you
think the planning service:
Promotes high quality development on the ground?
o 6 said Yes.
o 1 said No.
Offers positive support to developers; for example in the project management/timetabling if
their applications or offering a single point of contact?
o 6 said Yes.
o 1 said No.
Promotes an “open for business” culture within its staff?
o 7 said Yes.
o 4 said No.
Including Comments:
Obstructive, Negative, Delay. Not good, deal directly with supervisor.
Do planners realise implications in this particular application, flue conditioned out but then
transpired that business couldn’t go ahead. Client pulled out of business so property remains
derelict. Agent also didn't get paid.
Pre applications - positive - redesigned scheme then formal resubmitted and had to
redesign.
Better to promote smaller business, more assistance from planners. Would benefit from
face to face meetings.
Ayr Central Killed High Street.
Not easy process. Didn't come across as too focussed on process.
Focussed, worked well (quick), efficient, very good.
1
Annex 3 - Priority Development Proposals 2012-13
Table 1: Potential Significant Economic Benefit
Description Proposal Planning Stage Development Plan Priority SALP LDP
Auchincruive 495 houses, mixed use and associated facilities
Development delivery & implementation
N Y
Hannah Research Housing ( 65 units) Development delivery and implementation
N N
Whitfield Drive Industrial Park
Business and industry Planning applications x 3
Y Y
Olympic Business Park, Dundonald
Business and industry Planning applications x 3
y y
Grangestone, Girvan Business and industry Planning applications x 5
Y Y
Ladywell Road, Maybole
Business and industry Planning applications x 2
Y Y
Cassilis Road, Maybole Retail (new supermarket) Planning application
N N
Ladyland Road, Maybole
Retail (new supermarket) Planning application
Y Y
Land at Greenan Housing (500 units) and associated facilities
Planning applications, development delivery and implementation
Y Y
Cloncaird Castle Estate management Planning application and development delivery
N N
Ayr Central Retail extension and improvement Planning application and development delivery
Y Y
Heathfield Retail Park Retail extensions and improvement Planning applications x 7
N N
Tarbolton Road, Monkton
Housing (21 units) Planning applications x 2
N N
North East Troon Housing and associated facilities (680 units)
Development delivery and implementation
Y Y
Symington Road North, Symington
Housing (24 units) Planning application
Y Y
Doonholm Road, Housing (50 units) Planning Y Y
2
Alloway application, delivery and implementation
Neptune Works, Ayr Housing (300 housing units) Planning application
Y Y
Belleisle Hotel and Estate
Hotel and estate management Planning application and development delivery
N Y
Templeton House Housing and listed building conversion
Planning application
N N
Ladywell Terrace, Maybole
Redevelopment, town centre regeneration
Delivery
Turnberry Hotel conference and outdoor activity centre
Planning application
Y Y
South East Ayr Housing and associated facilities Delivery Y Y
Royal Troon Golf Clubhouse
Alterations including engineering and
landscaping works to golf
Planning application
Y Y
Plot 9 Ayr Care home Planning application
N N
Main Street, Monkton 58 housing units Development delivery and implementation
Y Y
Prestwick Golf Driving Range
Airport carparking Planning application
Y Y
Limonds Wynd, Ayr Student accommodation Planning application
Y Y
Craig Tara, Ayr Restaurant and leisure expansion Planning application
Y Y
Table 2 : Potential Significant Social, Community or Placemaking Benefit
Description Proposal Planning Stage Development Plan Priority (specific) SALP LDP
Glencairn and Cunningham Place, Ayr
Children’s home and affordable housing
Planning Application and implementation
N N
Ballantrae Community Garden Planning Application N N
Doonfoot Primary School extension Planning Application N N
Ayr Hospital Hospital extension Planning application N N
Ayr allotments Identification of allotments
Planning application N N
Woodpark, Ayr Affordable Housing Planning application N N
Girvan Shopfront Improvement Scheme
Planning Application and delivery
N N
3
Kirkmichael Replacement Primary
School
Implementation N N
Church Crescent Dailly Erection of 6 houses Planning Application
and development
delivery
N N
Carrick Angling Club – new
loch and clubhouse –
where?
Fishing loch, clubhouse
etc
Application and
delivery
Y Y
Ayr Clinic extension Alteration and extension
to Ayr Clinic
Planning Applications N N
Carrick Community Heritage Trail –
Signage placemaking furniture (plinths ets)
Planning Applications N N
Wallace Tower, Ayr Office accommodation and listed building works
Planning applications and development delivery
Y Y
Freemans Hall Prestwick Replacement steeple Planning applications and development delivery
N N
Various Council non-planning placemaking/environmental improvement initiatives
Ayr Town Heritage Initiative
Ayr Renaissance (Town Centre Support Group)
East Cairnhill Cottage feasibility study
Burns Birthplace Museum/ Alloway Auld Kirk lighting scheme
Seafield House Viability Group
National Trust major review of Culzean Estate
Development delivery Y Y
Notes:
1. Due to confidentiality of pre-application advice, proposals that have not yet been
submitted as a planning application are not included within this list.
2. Applications that meet Council priorities eg. economic benefit but which due to the type
of planning application ( a relatively simple proposal) do not require priority treatment
have not been included. Windfarms have not been included in this table, although they
do receive priority attention.
4
3. Planning Stage:
i) Planning application – a planning application was considered or determined in the
period 12/13
ii) Development delivery – This is action beyond that required to determine a planning
application. It can be pre and/or post planning application stages whereby the
Planning Service has worked with the applicant/developer to unlock the
development and/or assist with the project/development delivery
iii) Implementation – post planning application actions needed to implement the
planning application eg. legal agreement, conditions etc.
4. Development Plan priority is rated according to whether the plan provides specifically
for the proposal or whether the proposals would, if acceptable, have a significant
contribution to make the plan’s objectives for sustainable economic growth. It does not
imply that the development, as finally assessed, is contrary or not to the development
plan.
top related