Scottish Government

Proposed performance assessment framework

11. The assessment of planning performance should be based not just on formal assessments, but around a broader framework comprising the following five streams:

12. We believe that the assessment of planning performance should start with regular self-evaluation against a set of performance measures agreed by planning authorities. This should be based wherever possible on high levels of service that are currently being achieved, rather than on aspirations that are not deliverable. Key performance measures can then be gathered regularly by the Scottish Executive to identify trends and feed into a formal assessment process. The paper now goes on to discuss these streams in more detail. We would welcome your views on the specific questions raised, as well as general comments on any aspects of the paper.

Self-evaluation

13. While there will undoubtedly be some overlap with other internal and external audit processes, notably the Best Value regime, self-evaluation should be focused clearly on delivering an effective planning service, rather than financial or other considerations.

14. We have identified a set of themes around which the performance measures and indicators could be grouped. It is important that these measures and indicators are realistic yet ambitious, so that over time we can see improvements in performance across Scotland. While there will continue to be a range of quantitative measures (as revised to take into account the modernised planning system, for example, the new hierarchy for development management), the emphasis will be on recording continuous improvements against a range of performance measures, rather than focusing on simple targets. To support this, we are keen to develop a range of qualitative measures, focusing on key elements in the provision of a good quality service and taking account of wider issues, such as the perceptions that others have of the service.

15. While qualitative indicators are often more difficult to design than quantitative ones, being able to measure the value that planning is adding and the outcomes that it is producing, is essential to raising the profile of the profession and the job satisfaction of planners in practice. Qualitative measures for planning might include the use of innovative approaches to community engagement or systems for assessing the quality of outcomes, such as local design awards. Views are particularly welcomed on the suggested measures set out in the Annex and any others that are considered effective. We will take on board comments received during the consultation period, and work with authorities and others to produce an agreed set of measures.

16. The proposed performance themes are set out below and detail on proposed measures and indicators under each theme are set out in the Annex.

• Performance - e.g. the ability to meet or exceed statutory or policy targets;
• Process - e.g. the procedures and guidance in place for the main elements of the system, including e-planning;
• People - e.g. management performance, staff development and appraisal, staffing levels, approach to training for members and staff;
• Participation - e.g. the inclusion of the public and other stakeholders in the planning process, access to information;
• Policy - e.g. the contribution of planning to wider local and national objectives;
• Product - e.g. the delivery of sustainable development and other planning outcomes; and
• Perceptions - e.g. the effectiveness of the service from the perspective of communities, developers and their agents, statutory consultees and other users of the system.

QUESTION 1: Do you agree that there should continue to be a range of quantitative and qualitative measures for monitoring performance?

QUESTION 2: What other effective ways of monitoring performance could be used?

QUESTION 3: What are your views on the proposed set of performance measures in the Annex?

QUESTION 4: Do you have ideas for additional measures, particularly qualitative?

Assessment

When will assessments be carried out?

17. It is intended that a general assessment of the whole planning function in an authority will be carried out on a rolling programme, ensuring that all planning authorities are assessed periodically, probably not more than once every 5 years. This would require around 6 assessments to be carried out each year. A function-specific assessment may be triggered where performance falls in one part of the service, for example, where development plans have not been updated in the required 5 year period or performance on applications falls below agreed standards. The third type of assessment is on the decision-making process. While there is unlikely to be a fixed set of criteria for triggering such an assessment, it may be considered appropriate where significant concerns have been expressed to Ministers by applicants, those making representations, public bodies or even officials or members in the relevant council. Concerns could relate to high levels of referrals of applications contrary to the development plan, decisions consistently being taken against officials' advice or a number of complaints to the Ombudsman being upheld.

QUESTION 5: Do you agree that there should be a rolling programme of general assessments and, if so, is the 5-yearly cycle appropriate?

QUESTION 6: Do you support the proposed approach to determining whether Ministers should initiate a function-specific assessment or an assessment of patterns of decision-making? What kinds of considerations should Ministers take into account in each case?

How will the assessment be carried out?

Key principles for the assessment process

18. We propose that a set of principles should govern the assessment process. It is proposed that the process should be:

• Planning-focused - centred on the achievement of high quality planning outcomes
• Ongoing - periodically assessing every planning authority
• Fair - giving authorities advance notice and information about assessment programming and support in addressing the findings of assessments
• Robust - producing recommendations that are meaningful and useful to planning authorities and customers
• Open - sharing good practice with others to help deliver an improved and consistently high quality service

Who will carry out the assessments?

19. At a time agreed in advance with each authority, a formal assessment of the planning service would be carried out by an independent assessment team. It is proposed that the team is made up of a combination of permanent staff from a new dedicated assessment unit and temporary 'advisers'. We propose that these advisers should principally be senior or middle managers currently working in planning authorities, either in Scotland or beyond. They may also be drawn from organisations such as government agencies or specialist bodies. Importantly, the involvement of advisers would incorporate an element of peer review into the assessment process as well as providing a useful learning opportunity for the advisers themselves. We are currently considering the funding and location of the dedicated assessment unit.

QUESTION 7: Do you agree that planning managers and others should be involved as advisers on the assessment team?

QUESTION 8: How should advisers be selected for involvement?

What will be the method?

20. The assessment team will examine the regular self-evaluation by planning authorities and gather other relevant information at the time of assessment. We want recently completed internal or external audit work to feed into a planning assessment, rather than an entirely fresh look always being required. Therefore existing performance information, such as recent Best Value Audit reports, could be examined. Other relevant information might be gathered through a range of methods, including questionnaires, interviews, focus groups with stakeholders and walking the floor of the planning department. Other methods such as mystery shopping, where members of the assessment team test out elements of the service, such as the front counter experience, might also provide a useful insight to service delivery.

QUESTION 9: What other assessment methods might be employed by the assessment team?

What do we do with assessment results?

21. In line with the move to greater accountability of public services and greater access to information through the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, we will seek to provide a high level of transparency both with the process and the findings. The Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 requires Ministers to publish a report of their assessment, which may recommend improvements on the way that all or part of the planning function should be carried out. Individual comments made during the process will, however, continue to be confidential and non-attributable. Following a similar approach to the balanced scorecard model developed for auditing Building Standards verification functions, reports will be clearly structured around the proposed performance themes and general markings will be attached to each theme. As with the Building Standards model, we propose that the markings should be:

• Excellent - Major Strengths
• Good - Strengths outweigh weakness
• Satisfactory - Strengths balance weakness
• Cause for concern - Weaknesses outweigh strengths
• Serious cause for concern - Major weaknesses

22. We propose to develop a proportionate approach to post-assessment action, depending on the markings achieved. Therefore, where there is serious cause for concern, the assessment team might require specific steps to be taken in the short term and then follow-up to confirm that this has taken place. At the other end of the scale, specific action might be required in the medium-to-long term or not at all.

23. The Act requires that planning authorities shall prepare and submit a report within 3 months of receiving the assessment team's report, setting out how the recommendations will or will not be implemented. Where Scottish Ministers consider that appropriate steps are not being taken by the planning authority, they may issue a direction requiring the authority to take specific action. Such action might include a requirement to prioritise the response to a specific recommendation, such as the need to introduce regular staff meetings or a consistent approach to pre-application discussions. In the case of an assessment of patterns of decision-making, action might include a requirement to notify specific types of planning applications to Scottish Ministers for their decision.

QUESTION 10: What other ways of marking performance could be used?

QUESTION 11: Do you support the proposed approach to post-assessment action?

Information

24. As discussed above, the aspects of performance we propose to examine involve qualitative and quantitative measures and indicators. The new framework would therefore seek to take on board and develop the existing requirements for planning authorities to submit statistical information to the Scottish Executive and to continue to publish agreed information. This is currently carried out annually through the Annual Report of the Planning Audit Unit. However, this approach is not particularly responsive to changes in performance and can result in information becoming out-of-date by the time of publication. A more frequent system of reporting and publishing results may therefore be desirable and we would welcome your views on an appropriate timescale.

25. We are also keen to use new technology to best effect to modernise and simplify the way in which performance information is gathered from planning authorities, looking towards automatic collection and publication. The aim is for a more transparent system which places less burden on individual authorities.

QUESTION 12: How often should performance information be collected by the Scottish Executive?

QUESTION 13: What issues might be raised by extending the amount of performance information collected and changing the way in which it is gathered?

Sharing Good Practice

26. Armed with regular assessment reports and up-to-date information on planning performance, it is intended that the assessment unit would use a range of methods to share good practice, for example, through the Internet, publications on particular themes or inter-authority workshops. Where appropriate, good practice could also be drawn from outside Scotland. In this way, lessons can be learned and the benefits of the assessments can be spread more widely.

QUESTION 14: What ways of sharing good practice would you find most useful?

Supporting Planning Authorities

27. Over time, the aim is for the new assessment framework to result in a widespread and consistent improvement in performance across authorities. Alongside the sharing of good practice, we are keen to develop a support package to help improve performance in authorities that are not able to meet a high level of service. While a financially-based incentives or sanctions regime is not currently supported by Scottish Ministers, other types of incentive or sanction may be considered.

28. The Planning Development Programme was launched in 2005 to address training needs and skills gaps which might be hindering planning authorities in the effective delivery of their functions. The assessment team will consider training and skills issues in drawing up the recommendations in individual assessment reports, and where necessary, work with the planning authority to include skills-related activity in the authority's action plan. Where generic training and skills issues arise from the wider programme of assessments, these will also be raised with the Planning Development Manager.

29. The Scottish Awards for Quality in Planning is an annual event that rewards outstanding performance and quality across a range of categories. We will consider whether the Awards might be used to recognise teams or individual officers within an authority, where performance and service levels have been improved by introducing more efficient processes.

30. In terms of sanctions, we have discussed above the possibility of Ministers directing authorities to take specific steps, such as additional notification of planning applications, where performance has not been satisfactory. We are keen to hear your views on what other support measures, incentives or sanctions might be appropriate to help deliver improvements in performance.

QUESTION 15: What other measures might be used to support planning authorities?

QUESTION 16: What sanctions might be appropriate against poor performance, particularly non-financial options?