Transforming The Planning Function: Three Methodologies

Methodology One: Process Mapping

Conversations with planners had already highlighted that performance targets were frustrating planning objectives and confusing applicants since planners regularly had to intervene in the process to meet the targets. Mapping the planning sub processes in a logical sequence, from pre-application to discharge of conditions was the first step towards pinpointing the main issues and process bottlenecks. It also enabled a comparison of the working practices of each of the councils and therefore some initial identification of best practice.

For example; each council was at a different stage of implementing EDRMS, each used the Uniform system to capture data differently and each has responded in its own way to the changes brought about by the 1-App form.

A planning sub-process map

Methodology Two: Analysis of UNI-form Data

Secondly, we analysed 12 months worth of data from their CAPS UNI-form systems to establish the time taken between each key stage of the process, for example from receipt to validation or from consultation to decision, and to understand the overall flow of applications across the period.

Methodology Three: Rough-cut ABC

Next, the council identified and agreed upon separate activities in each of the sub processes. Staff were then invited to enter data to our on line system that described the amount of time they spent on each of these activities.

This allowed the costs of the processes to be calculated. For each sub process the cost of value adding activities, sustaining and non-value adding activities were calculated based on whether the activity added value for the customer or merely satisfied the requirements of the council and other stakeholders. The customer of the process was defined as the applicant.

Results were then benchmarked between councils and for each a plan was drawn up to show where costs could be reduced or efficiency improved.

The DNA diagram - Cost of sub processes as % of total planning spend

Despite the fact that total process costs were widely different the specific costs within each sub process as a percentage of overall expenditure showed a similar pattern across all three councils. However on closer inspection there were some key differences which the councils identified as potential areas for reducing costs. Some of these differences can be explained by the political and cultural climate. For example, East Riding spends over 11% of its total on deciding applications at committee whilst Leeds and Hambleton spend a much lower 7% and 8%.

Read Hambleton's Story and Case Studies from Leeds and East Riding.