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

- Print

- 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.