Скачать презентацию Appendix to the business case for a shared Скачать презентацию Appendix to the business case for a shared

e5775d60dce42769ffb1f68e9cf90eca.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 64

Appendix to the business case for a shared Planning Service 1 Appendix to the business case for a shared Planning Service 1

Appendix contents page 1 of 2 Options considered Slide 4 How we will implement Appendix contents page 1 of 2 Options considered Slide 4 How we will implement the vision Slide 5 Development Management Area teams – key points Slide 6 Strategic Sites and Specialists team – key points Slide 7 Planning Support team – key points Slide 8 Enforcement team – key points Slide 9 Implementation and improvement team – key points Slide 10 Process improvements / themes: Pre application advice Slide 13 Process improvements / themes: Planning application (registration, validation and consultation) Slide 14 Process improvements / themes: Planning application (assessment and decision) Slide 15 Process improvements / themes: Enforcement Slide 16 Process improvements / themes: Appeals Slide 17 2

Appendix contents page 2 of 2 Waste, efficiency and time saving Slide 18 Key Appendix contents page 2 of 2 Waste, efficiency and time saving Slide 18 Key features of the desired culture Slide 20 A risk based approach in Planning Slide 21 Working with Agents Slide 23 Location analysis Slide 24 Customer services arrangements Slide 28 Information systems and information management Slide 30 Current staff structure Chiltern Slide 31 Current staff structure South Bucks Slide 32 Staff structure key points Slide 33 Implementation assessment points Slide 34 Service review goals Slide 35 Non financial benefits and disbenefits Slide 36 Risks and issues Slide 54 Trevor Roberts Associates assurance on the business case Slide 63 3

Options considered Various models of a shared Planning Services were considered, each at differing Options considered Various models of a shared Planning Services were considered, each at differing levels of integration. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Low level of shared service (shared Development Manager only) Shared management only Partially shared planning delivery across two locations Complete shared planning delivery all from one location The business case has been developed around option 5, complete shared planning delivery all from one location. Following an analysis of the options, option 5 was selected by the Members Working Group as it offers the greatest benefits in terms of service quality, resilience and cost savings and the service review goals. Furthermore, there were significant drawbacks with the other options. 4

How we will implement the vision To achieve this vision the service will: • How we will implement the vision To achieve this vision the service will: • Have a constructive team ethos which has a ‘can do’ approach, taking ownership and responsibility for dealing with issues and actively working to find effective solutions • Ensure that processes are the most efficient and effective • Ensure that there is a strong focus on the customer’s role in helping to secure sustainable development, although accepting that not all of customers needs can be met • Ensure that the information available on the website is up-todate and accurate to enable the customer to self serve 5

Development Management Area Teams - key points Theme Specific actions Development Management culture • Development Management Area Teams - key points Theme Specific actions Development Management culture • • A positive and collaborative approach to finding solutions Good and timely communication with the customer Risk based approach • • Empower Officers to make some decisions without Area Team Leader sign off Sign off, where needed, at the lowest acceptable levels Sample based approaches to reviewing decisions Local List will only require what is really necessary Stronger performance management and openness of information and workloads • • • Active use of IDOX Enterprise module Accountability for agreed actions Regular line manager and staff liaison Dynamic and flexible use of resources between the teams • Officers move between teams more fluidly depending on demand expertise / knowledge Greater emphasis on the customer experience • • Working with Agents / developing a dialogue Review of customer feedback Greater focus on income generation • • • Chargeable advice model Planning Performance Agreements Increase pre application advice income for Chiltern to South Bucks levels (in 2016/17 South Bucks income is likely to be circa £ 150, 000 and Chiltern only £ 60, 000 (based on actuals), therefore an action will be to increase Chiltern pre app income levels to parity with South Bucks i. e. a £ 90, 000 increase, this has been factored into the business case investment appraisal) 6

Strategic sites and Specialists team - key points Strategic sites element • • • Strategic sites and Specialists team - key points Strategic sites element • • • A dedicated focus A team wide understanding of the strategic applications / issues The right skills, expertise and attitude Ability to form positive relationships to help find solutions and a professional approach which instills confidence A consistent approach to strategic applications Specialists element • • Way of working A more resilient team Greater knowledge sharing and joint problem solving • • • Set an appropriate threshold to ensure the Strategic Sites team deal with applications which are truly strategic and ensure the Area Teams still have a wide variety of interesting work Increasing or decreasing the size of the strategic sites team depending on workloads at any one point of time Staff rotation into the strategic sites team to retain interest and variety Way of working • Less key person dependency in terms of admin support 7

Planning Support Team - key points Theme Specific actions Risk based approach • • Planning Support Team - key points Theme Specific actions Risk based approach • • Not applying the local list validation requirements unnecessarily rigidly An incentive scheme for agents to submit ‘good work’. Looks for opportunities to automate work and channel shift • • • Constraints information available in the UNIFORM system Ability to make payments online Encourage the most cost effective channels i. e. electronic submission of applications, representations, consultation responses Flexible use of resources • • Big emphasis on multiskilling and fewer hand-overs of work mid-process Staff resources to be used dynamically by the Planning Support Manager (includes use of Enterprise for work flow management purposes) Staff rotate within the function to gain broad experience and expertise preventing key person dependency and rigidity from setting in • Strong role in information management • • Moves to paperless working Digitisation of hard copy information Innovative • Promotes and is willing to try new ways of working and new processes (if it’s not working, change it) Works with Customer Services • Mutually supportive of Customer Services and encourages customers to self serve and adopt the most efficient channels 8

Enforcement Team - key points Theme Specific actions Risk based approach • Careful prioritisation Enforcement Team - key points Theme Specific actions Risk based approach • Careful prioritisation of cases based on impact and risk so that effort and resource is optimally focussed. Lower impact cases will not necessarily result in enforcement action Appropriate knowledge and skills • Officers with the knowledge and skills to make judgements, decisions and the ability to progress cases down the full range of Enforcement options A team with the ability to process retrospective applications • Customer communication • • • Pro-active and robust • approach • • Clear process for making complaints Update customers at key points in the process Work with Parish and Town Councils and other agencies to adopt a collaborative approach Early service of formal notices demonstrating that the Council takes breaches of Planning control very seriously Seeking the early submission of retrospective applications and if not received take a timely and clear decision about whether to pursue the case further Where it is expedient to take action then do so with speed and vigor 9

Implementation and improvement team – key points What: A team whose task it is Implementation and improvement team – key points What: A team whose task it is to ensure the effective implementation of a shared Planning Service and support the improvement of the service. The team will be co-ordinated through the implementation project governance structure. Who: Made up of permanent and temporary Officers within Planning, Officers from HR, Business Support, Customer Services, Facilities Management and Communications, a Director from the Management Team and support from TRA. Some staff will be involved on the project full time and for some it will not be full time but a significant part of their work Why: Implementation and improvement is a huge task with various work strands. A programme and project governance structure is needed to co-ordinate and drive this work. When: Set up as part of the staff restructure and will exist as long as needed for implementation and improvement How: Co-ordinated in a programme and project structure and by engaging other staff in Planning and also other services 10

Implementation and improvement team – main areas of focus Programme and Project management and Implementation and improvement team – main areas of focus Programme and Project management and co-ordination of the following: o Staff restructure o Staff training and development o Accommodation move for Planning Services o Set up of a single Planning ICT and DMS system o Digitisation of hard copy Planning information o Information structures, storage and retrieval o Harmonisation of processes and procedures, process efficiency and best use of systems o Performance management arrangements o Website development and self service o Cultural change and team building for the Planning Service o Organisational learning, site visits to other authorities, best practice o Development of Customer Services delivery of the Planning Service o Development of Planning advice and income generation o Customer engagement o Updating Members on progress o Assessment reviews of progress Click here to get back to the functional diagram 11

Implementation team and improvement team – programme / project roles Role Time Programme Director Implementation team and improvement team – programme / project roles Role Time Programme Director PT Strategic direction, alignment with other projects and programmes, secures resources Programme / project sponsor PT Programme and project direction, Member engagement, mediation Programme Manager FT Programme Management TRA advisor PT External advice on best practice, staff development, training Development Manager PT Enforcement Manager PT Planning Support Manager PT Planning Improvement Officer x 2 FT Process harmonisation and improvement, systems integration, learning, self service, customer service Planning Improvement assistant FT Support Planning Improvement Officer aims HR Advisor FT Advises on the restructure process, job descriptions and appointments, cultural change, training and development HR Administrator FT Administers the restructure process Facilities Management support PT Accommodation move, staff wellbeing, information storage and retrieval Business Support PT Set up of a single ICT and DMS system and advises on best use of systems , contributes to process development, digitisation of Planning information Customer Services PT Development and delivery of the Customer Services element of Planning for Face to Face and Telephony Web services Officer PT Supports development of a single Planning website Communications Officer PT Advises on customer and staff communications Various including but not restricted to - Harmonisation of processes and approach, directing work and changes, improvement, staff liaison, income generation 12

Process improvements / themes – Pre application advice • Maintain the quality of the Process improvements / themes – Pre application advice • Maintain the quality of the advice (which was externally assured as high quality) • Increase the speed of the Chiltern pre app service to South Bucks levels with the aim of increasing take up and pre app income • Review the fee charging structure in order to increase income • Remove South Bucks Planning Officers spending time calculating fee and charges • Further clarify the split between free information and chargeable advice • End the free advice service provided by the duty Planning Officer at Chiltern • Remove the validation process for pre application advice and have a less prescriptive and more flexible approach 13

Process improvements / themes – Planning application (registration, validation and consultation) • • Review Process improvements / themes – Planning application (registration, validation and consultation) • • Review Planning application channels to reduce paper and email submissions and further increase the focus on use of the Planning Portal for submissions Actively encourage customers to submit comments / representations via Public Access rather than hard copy letter or email so that it populates the back office system More multi-skilled working to reduce hand overs and the overall capability of Planning Support A more risk based approach to validation of Planning applications and only request information which is critical to the consideration of the application, aiming to reduce the invalidity rate Actively promote the use of Planning Performance Agreements (PPA’s), particularly in relation to strategic sites and other key sites, thereby demonstrating a constructive approach to securing sustainable development, and in addition increasing income generation for the service All constraints to be run within the UNIFORM system saving Officer time All representations and consultation responses made available on Public Access 14

Process improvements / themes – Planning application (assessment and decision) • Eliminate unnecessarily extensive Process improvements / themes – Planning application (assessment and decision) • Eliminate unnecessarily extensive sign off arrangements • Devolve sign off to the lowest acceptable level • Use of Enterprise UNIFORM module to help performance management and balancing workloads between Officers and teams and smoother work flow • Where it can be achieved within the 8 / 13 week statutory period (or a formal extension of time), offers applicants the opportunity to amend their proposals if this might result in a recommendation for permission rather than for refusal • Explore the potential for increased feedback to applicants on the progress of their application • Stronger arrangements around document retention and disposal, not retaining hard copy documents unnecessarily • Greater clarity for customers about what they can expect and should not expect from the Planning Service 15

Process improvements / themes – Enforcement • Ensure that enforcement investigations are undertaken with Process improvements / themes – Enforcement • Ensure that enforcement investigations are undertaken with vigour and in a timely manner • Make it easy for complainants to make a complaint • Strong and well documented processes • Clear and consistent application of the Enforcement process across the team • Establish clear, full and accurate details at the outset to inform priority and approach • Excellent record keeping about the progression of the case making the best use of the Enforcement module and DMS • A proactive approach to investigations • Use of the Enterprise module to manage performance • The team will produce their own Enforcement Notices with liaison with Legal • A streamlined approach to Members involvement in serving notices 16

Process improvements / themes – Planning application (appeals) • Use the pre application process Process improvements / themes – Planning application (appeals) • Use the pre application process to provide quality advice to minimise the likelihood of poor quality applications, and thus the potential for refusals and appeals • Robust and sound decision making to ensure the Council is able to robustly defend refusals of permission on appeal • Involve the Planning Policy team when there is a policy issue • Monitor appeals performance in order to inform and assist future decision making • Clear minutes explaining why the Planning Committee has overturned an officer recommendation for approval • Address key person dependencies in Planning Support 17

Waste, efficiency and time saving slide 1 of 2 Waste Type of waste Potential Waste, efficiency and time saving slide 1 of 2 Waste Type of waste Potential solution Face to face contact which could have been dealt with by a more cost effective person or resolved through the website • Skills inappropriate to task • Failure demand • Quality of website information and FAQs • Empowering and developing staff who respond at the first point of contact Manual handling, scanning, uploading of paper or emailed • Manual entry applications, consultation responses or representations and redacting information • Promoting electronic channels (Planning Portal and submission of representations and consultation responses online and limiting other channels e. g. email) • Appropriate data disclaimers Poor quality applications which don’t meet Local List requirements • Failure demand • Work and engage with Agents (particularly those who regularly submit poor quality applications) • Review of guidance on website Excessive registration / validation requirements and requests for information beyond that which is required to make a good Planning decision • Overkill / over working • • Poor quality applications (application) leading to time spent on appeals • Failure demand • Effective and timely pre app advice to improve the quality of applications Excessive sign off arrangements which are disproportionate to the risk of the application / Planning decision • Overkill / over working • Risk based approach to sign off and checking Development of the weekly list which provides information which is also available on Public Access • Duplication • Data manipulation • Over delivery • Explore the possibility of not producing the Weekly List and relying on Public Access Giving low risk / impact Enforcement cases excessive priority and progressing them further than is necessary • Over delivery • Review Enforcement policies and procedures • Member training Constraints being run by Planning Assistants at South Bucks • Skills inappropriate to task • Review of roles through the restructure • Process development project Review of Local List Risk based approach to validation Training in Planning Support Careful monitoring of invalidity rate 18

Waste, efficiency and time saving slide 2 of 2 Waste Type of waste Potential Waste, efficiency and time saving slide 2 of 2 Waste Type of waste Potential solution Running constraints manually and through a single system • Data manipulation • Shared UNIFORM system implementation and Digitisation project Overly burdensome arrangements to secure Enforcement Notices at South Bucks • Overkill • Delay • Review of Member processes around notices Unnecessary printing of information associated with an application which is not needed to assess and make a decision • Data manipulation • Process review • Improve and increase access to information electronically Storing hard copy information which could be digitised and accessed electronically • Data manipulation • Inventory / physical storage • Digitisation project Overly burdensome process to register and request pre application advice • Overkill / overworking • Review of pre app process (adopt flexible approach more akin to South Bucks) Delays in making decisions about how to progress Enforcement cases (South Bucks) • Delays • Clearer management and direction in Enforcement – Local Enforcement Plan • Enforcement Officers able to progress Planning applications Poor quality information in the SBDC Enforcement module leading to delays, customer failure demand work • Delays • Failure demand • Training and management of Enforcement staff Poor quality decisions leading to appeals, unnecessary administration and potentially costs • Time and costs • Review policies, training of DM Officers, review of checking regime Applications being called into the Planning Committee where the Planning Committee would add little value • Overkill / overworking • Member training • Engagement with the Planning Committees Calculation of Pre app advice fees by Planning Officers • Skills inappropriate to task • Data manipulation • Review of pre app process 19

Key features of the desired culture We want the new shared culture to have Key features of the desired culture We want the new shared culture to have the following features which align with the values and behaviours developed as part of Stronger in Partnership: Our leadership is strategic, innovative & bold We take a Development Management approach We take a risk based approach We are outcome focussed We are outwardly focussed We are open to change and try new approaches We are flexible in meeting customer needs and our use of resources • We have a commercial mind set • • 20

A risk based approach in Planning slide 1 of 2 A risk based approach A risk based approach in Planning slide 1 of 2 A risk based approach in Planning is the concept that resources should be focused on the important and priority tasks, and less so on the less important and lower priority tasks. Some key benefits are: • It optimises the use of resources and is more efficient • It promotes autonomy and responsibility for work and owning the customer response It recognises that some applications and enforcement cases are of a more routine nature and that staff should be empowered to take full and extensive responsibility for determining these matters in accordance with policy and published procedures with less sign off. A risk based approach acknowledges that some planning applications present limited risks to the two councils but which are nevertheless currently delivered through the same set of processes as strategic or major applications. 21

A risk based approach in Planning - potential options, slide 2 of 2 Registration A risk based approach in Planning - potential options, slide 2 of 2 Registration • A review of the local list and where appropriate simplified. In particular, local standards should only be applied or used where they are absolutely necessary to achieve the information necessary to determine an application. • The Planning Support Manager should ensure that all staff concerned take a proportionate approach to the registration of planning applications. This will involve setting standards and expectations on contacting agents quickly by either phone or email to resolve any technical issues and with a view to achieving a practical and negotiated outcome to any unresolved issues. Development Management • The ability of identified Principal and Senior Planning Officers to issue delegated decision on minor and other planning applications that have been handled by planning officers • Introducing different levels of checking of applications based on application types • Introducing different levels of checking based on case officer qualifications (RTPI), experience and recent performance. Enforcement • A review of the priorities for enforcement action to ensure they are optimised in terms of harm / impact • Making an early judgement about potential courses of action • Regular use of the type of notices that require information from the owner or the developer concerned. Such notices also have the advantage of identifying to the owner / developer that action and progress is being made on the matter. • Clear and regular updates to complainants and ward members. This will provide confidence and assurance. It will also demonstrate that priorities are being followed. 22

Working with Agents • Regular and planned meetings with agents throughout the transition process Working with Agents • Regular and planned meetings with agents throughout the transition process • Involving them in redesigning the local list • Providing regular and structured feedback to agents on performance • Where necessary having 1: 1 meetings with agents who frequently fail to meet agreed standards 23

Shared Planning Services – Location Analysis Better than the other location Worse than the Shared Planning Services – Location Analysis Better than the other location Worse than the other location Marginally better than the other location Area of consideration Marginally worse than the other location Capswood King George V House How well can the service be accommodated? The service could be located at Capswood Could other services which work closely with Planning be in the same office? Yes Could other services which work closely with Planning be on the same floor space? No Yes For the service to all be located on the same floor would be dependent on making swift progress with digitisation of hard copy files and mobile and flexible working (a reduction in the desk to officer ratio). However if digitisation and implementation of flexible and mobile working arrangements is not swift enough then there would not be the storage capacity at Denham for South Bucks and Chiltern hard copy information. The service could be located at King George V House and all be accommodated on the same floor. 24

Shared Planning Services – Location Analysis Better than the other location Worse than the Shared Planning Services – Location Analysis Better than the other location Worse than the other location Marginally better than the other location Area of consideration How good is the storage capacity and access to stored information? Marginally worse than the other location Capswood King George V House If digitisation of hard copy information is not swift enough access to hard copy information would be more limited as there would not be sufficient storage to allow direct access to South Bucks Planning information moved from off-site storage to Amersham, or to Chiltern Planning information currently held at Amersham. More storage capacity overall (in the basement and on the office floor) and there would be closer access to the South Bucks Planning information which will be moved to the Amersham basement from off-site storage. Storage space which is not in the actual Office is smaller at Capswood. N. B There will be a digitisation project which will reduce the amount of storage required over time. Storage space which is not in the actual Office is greater at Amersham. i. e. in the basement. N. B There will be a digitisation project which will reduce the amount of storage required over time. How well does the location support the Planning information digitisation project? Not as well as staff will be needed close on hand to support and make decisions around the digitisation of some of the hard copy information stored in the King George V Basement (e. g. SBDC hard copy files) Better as staff will be closer to support and make decisions around the digitisation of some of the hard copy information stored in the King George V Basement (e. g. SBDC hard copy files) What is the physical capacity of the Customer Services area to support the service? Less able to accommodate an increase in visitors and a potential cost to enlarge the reception area (move Citizens Advice Bureau) Better able to accommodate an increase in visitors N. B Over time, through channel shift, the number of visitors may decrease. 25

Shared Planning Services – Location Analysis Worse than the other location Better than the Shared Planning Services – Location Analysis Worse than the other location Better than the other location Marginally better than the other location Area of consideration Marginally worse than the other location Capswood King George V House What is the capability of Customer Services and Business Support to support the service? Potentially less capability as there will be less Customer Services staff in total at Capswood due to fewer services being located there. Less effective liaison with Business Support which is based largely at Amersham Potentially more capacity as there will be more Customer Services staff in total at King George due to a greater number of services being located there. More effective liaison with Business Support which is based largely at Amersham Which is the most central location across the two Districts for customers? Both locations are about the same in terms of being a central location in the Districts (King George V House is possibly fractionally more central) Which Office currently receives more Planning visitors Marginally less visitors Marginally more visitors Which location has the best quality of public transport? Public transport is not as good Public transport is better Ease of parking for staff Free available parking on site (although if Capswood 1 is rented out it will be more limited) On site parking is much more limited and would be even more limited when the BCC Wing is fully occupied. N. b There is Planning application to extend the multi-story car park and consideration being given to further parking on site. Ease of parking for customers Free available parking (although if Capswood 1 is rented out it will be more limited) Parking available at Civic Centre car park but not free except for first 0. 5 hrs, all other car parks are not free 26

Shared Planning Services – Location Analysis Other services it would be advantageous to co-locate Shared Planning Services – Location Analysis Other services it would be advantageous to co-locate with Service and order of preference Nature of interaction Reason for co-location 1. Planning Policy • Development Management involvement in Plan preparation • Development Management involvement in SPD / Planning brief process • Planning Policy involvement in pre app process • Planning Policy involvement in application process for strategic or complex policy issues • Planning Policy involvement in some appeals • To ensure a high quality of Development Management decisions and to support the work of the Strategic Sites team, pre app advice, applications and the Local Planning process 2. Legal • Serving section 330 notices for Enforcement (potentially less need for Legal involvement in the future) • Serving Planning Contravention Notices • Legal serve Stop Notices and Enforcement Notices and section 215 notices • Legal represent the Council at court • Legal draft section 106 agreements • Legal arrange and brief Counsel • To maximise integration of Legal in the Enforcement and Development Management processes 3. Customer Services (main hub) • Customer Services respond to some Planning related Customer enquiries • Planning support Customer Services when they cannot deal with the enquiry • Ensuring Customer Services Officers are developed and trained to respond to Planning customer enquires • To develop the relationship and services provided by Customer Services for Planning Services 4. Business Support • Systems development • ICT problems / service desk issues • Significant systems development is envisaged • Planning has the greatest number of UNIFORM users 5. Building Control • Building Control are involved in some Enforcement cases • Building Control are consulted on some Planning applications • Ensures co-ordination between the services 27

Customer Services arrangements From the point of co-location of a shared Planning Service the Customer Services arrangements From the point of co-location of a shared Planning Service the provision of face to face contact with customers by Customer Services would continue at both locations because Customer Services staff will be based at both Amersham and Denham. The public will be able to visit both offices for general Planning enquiries. The distribution of activities, roles and resources between Customer Services and Planning will be reviewed and informed by further analysis of customer contact, the overall direction of the Customer Services Strategy and further development of the Planning Service. Over time this may affect the proposed roles in the Planning Service and Customer Services. The co-ordination and control over this area of work will be led jointly by the Customer Services Manager and the Planning Support Manager. The primary location for the provision of face to face service delivery from Officers within the Planning Service will be King George V House but paid for advice involving a meeting could be delivered at either location depending on the preference of the customer. This developing area of work will have some particular features and principles: • • • It will inform and align with the Councils’ Corporate Customer Services Strategy It will be informed by data and a robust understanding of customer contact Empowering staff to ‘own customer contact’ with systems, information and development It will be led by an arrangement that can best respond at the first point of contact The relationship between Planning and Customer Services will develop to be more mutually supportive 28

Customer Services arrangements self service, information and advice Customer channels for the provision of Customer Services arrangements self service, information and advice Customer channels for the provision of information will be prioritised as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. On line self-help Corporate Customer Services phone Planning Support by phone (on matters not resolved at 2) Corporate Customer Services in person Planning Support in person (on matters not resolved at 4) Generic e-mail Inbox In parallel to these activities Customer Self Service will be developed through development of the website, content and FAQs. In addition to the provision of information to customers, Planning will offer a service to prospective applicants and agents which provides planning advice and this service will be chargeable, developed further and the free Duty Officer service wound down. This could be delivered from both King George V House or Capswood, depending on the customer’s needs. 29

Information systems and information management • Single Uniform, DMS, Public Access system • All Information systems and information management • Single Uniform, DMS, Public Access system • All data and documents would be located into the shared Uniform/DMS database and accessed via the same icons and user interface • Digitisation project running in parallel to the implementation of the Planning Service • Enterprise module to support workflow and performance management • Make best use of modules & learning from IDOX report • Agreed structure for information on corporate drives • Development and use of ICT is everyone’s responsibility 30

31 31

32 32

Shared Planning Service staff structure – key points • • • Planning Management Team Shared Planning Service staff structure – key points • • • Planning Management Team to direct change involving a Development Manager, Enforcement Manager, Planning Support Manager and Head of Sustainable Development A reduction in Management and Management costs Contributes to a reduction in the number of direct reports to the Head of Service Development Management function appropriately structured to promote a risk based approach Principal and Senior Officers to provide: o Resilience to stand in for the Area Team Leaders o Experienced staff to deal with more complex applications and pre application advice o Devolution of sign off, below Area Team leaders level thus reducing the pressure on Area Team Leaders o Assistance to the Area Team leaders in providing formal and informal advice / guidance for more junior Planners Staff resources used flexibly according to demand (e. g. movement between Area Teams; into the Strategic Sites team; contributing to improvement projects; around different roles and tasks within Planning Support) Limits issues in relation to two sets of Planning Policies and Planning Committees (no cross boundary Area Teams) Moves resources to areas to where there is a growth in demand (Strategic Sites) Career progression o Planning Officer roles are career graded o More gradation of roles below the Area Team Leader level Roles to support improvement, use of technology and implementation project (essential given the level of expected change) (1 permanent and 2 temporary) Reduction in FTE in Development Management, Planning Support, Specialists and Enforcement Reduction in Planning Support is phased 33

Implementation assessment points At certain points during implementation there will be formal assessments to Implementation assessment points At certain points during implementation there will be formal assessments to check we are making progress and on the right track, the assessments will look at: • • Realisation of Business Case benefits Performance Capacity Committees and processes Cost split Customer Services arrangement Opportunities for increased income generation This assessment could involve Trevor Roberts Associates, the LGA or Internal Audit. 34

Service review goals These goals were developed to steer the review and the Shared Service review goals These goals were developed to steer the review and the Shared Planning Service. The benefits section in this appendix sets out how the business case meets these goals. 1. To instil a culture, service design and communications which are customer focussed 2. Information and pre application advice that is timely, readily available to enable and encourage customers to submit only those applications which are likely to receive a favourable decision 3. A high performing service, adequately resourced to meet Government and local targets and regulatory and statutory requirements 4. Processes that are robust, effective, efficient, make best use of technology, are common across the two authorities, easy to understand consistently applied 5. A strong and stable team with a clear sense of direction where the staff are valued, respected, motivated and challenged in providing a high quality service 6. To reduce costs as much as possible whilst providing a high quality and resilient service 35

Non financial benefits and disbenefits of a shared Planning Service 36 Non financial benefits and disbenefits of a shared Planning Service 36

Benefits • Programme aim. Quality of service • Goal 3. A high performing service, Benefits • Programme aim. Quality of service • Goal 3. A high performing service, adequately resourced to meet Government and local targets and regulatory and statutory requirements • The adoption of the best features of each Council and new ways of working • Address known issues in both services • Application of best practice and a positive, customer focussed, Development Management culture, equally across both Councils • Would adopt a model for enforcement where officers process retrospective & associated applications 37

Benefits • Programme Aim. Resilience • Impact on management capacity • Impact on staff Benefits • Programme Aim. Resilience • Impact on management capacity • Impact on staff capacity • Greater flexibility from a single larger pool of resource (mgt of peaks, troughs and sickness) • Enhanced management capacity of the Head of Service and a reduced number of direct reports to the Head of Service • Head of Service more available to staff 38

Benefits • Programme Aim. Efficiency/Cost • Goal 6. To reduce costs as much as Benefits • Programme Aim. Efficiency/Cost • Goal 6. To reduce costs as much as possible whilst providing a high quality and resilient service N. B these financial benefits are set out in the investment appraisal • Reduction in management costs • It better positions the service to reduce costs without impacting on quality or resilience • Greater flexibility to manage staff costs in relation to sickness / absence • Increased income from pre app advice and planning fees • Cost savings from a single Planning system (implementation, upgrades, hardware) • More efficient to develop systems (upgrades and new installations are done once) 39

Benefits • Goal 1. To instil a culture, service design and communications which are Benefits • Goal 1. To instil a culture, service design and communications which are customer focussed • Impact on customers • A customer focussed culture through a single shared management team • Combined staff resource allows a more flexible response to customer issues 40

Benefits • Goal 2. Information and pre application advice that is timely, readily available Benefits • Goal 2. Information and pre application advice that is timely, readily available to enable and encourage customers to submit only those applications which are likely to receive a favourable decision • Opportunity to address pre app timescales and uptake at Chiltern and unnecessary calculation of fees by Planning Officers at South Bucks 41

Benefits • Goal 4. Processes that are robust, effective, efficient, make best use of Benefits • Goal 4. Processes that are robust, effective, efficient, make best use of technology, are common across the two authorities, easy to understand consistently applied • Common and improved processes and a consistency of approach over time and between functions • More efficient processing of work, reduced handovers, electronic processing • Paperless working and the associated benefits (cost, mobile and flexible working, broadens access to information) • Processes would be common across the two Councils • A staff structure with more capacity and knowledge about how to develop systems, and processes 42

Benefits • Goal 5. A strong and stable team with a clear sense of Benefits • Goal 5. A strong and stable team with a clear sense of direction where the staff are valued, respected, motivated and challenged in providing a high quality service • Impact on Planning staff • Clear sense of direction • A ‘one team’ approach and a positive unified culture • A Planning management team able to provide leadership and direction across the combined resources of Chiltern and South Bucks • Opportunities to assert behaviours and expectations through a full restructure and a single management structure • Opportunities for career progression and new ways of working will be of interest to some staff and will energise, motivate and enthuse • A review and re-structure of the service would create fairness in terms of roles and pay • Benefits of increased knowledge sharing • Would reduce ‘them and us’ attitudes between the two Council’s Planning Services 43

Benefits Impact on Members • Reputational benefits from greater customer satisfaction and innovation 44 Benefits Impact on Members • Reputational benefits from greater customer satisfaction and innovation 44

Benefits Impact on other service areas Would benefit other services: • Business Support can Benefits Impact on other service areas Would benefit other services: • Business Support can maintain just one set of systems e. g. can maintain just one property database • A single, clear Enforcement process would be easier for Legal Services to support • A single Planning Service for Customer Services to support • Would allow a single Total Land Charges system 45

Benefits Implications for future Planning / Development growth • Creates a strategic sites team Benefits Implications for future Planning / Development growth • Creates a strategic sites team which would help manage future Planning growth 46

Disbenefits • Programme aim. Quality of service • Goal 3. A high performing service, Disbenefits • Programme aim. Quality of service • Goal 3. A high performing service, adequately resourced to meet Government and local targets and regulatory and statutory requirements Disbenefit Mitigation or opportunities Implementing the shared service could have a short term negative impact on performance • • • Sufficient resources for change Careful monitoring of performance Assessment points in implementation plan 47

 • Programme Aim. Resilience Disbenefits • Impact on management capacity • Impact on • Programme Aim. Resilience Disbenefits • Impact on management capacity • Impact on staff capacity Disbenefit Mitigation Implementing the change will be very demanding on managers and will impact on staff and support services • • Support and development for Managers Sufficient resources for change 48

Disbenefits • Programme Aim. Efficiency/Cost • Goal 6. To reduce costs as much as Disbenefits • Programme Aim. Efficiency/Cost • Goal 6. To reduce costs as much as possible whilst providing a high quality and resilient service Disbenefit Mitigation or opportunities Redundancy and pension strain costs • The Council has a policy to minimise redundancy and the shared service proposal has carefully balanced the financial implications of redundancy with what is needed for the development of the service. Will require staff to travel to the other • office to meet customers (costs and • non productive time) Customers have been proven to migrate to the main office location (Building Control). Travel for Officers in the Planning Service will be minimal and mainly just for the provision of pre application advice if a meeting is needed at Capswood. Customer Services will develop to respond to information requests and simple transactions at both locations. • Increased transport costs and time spent due to site visits (costs and non productive time) These costs will diminish over time as the flexible and mobile working programme develops. May displace other services This is a potential consequence and also provides the opportunity to look strategically at the location of all the services and the accommodation strategy. (N. b this is a financial costs issue and is dealt with in the investment appraisal section) • 49

Disbenefits • Goal 1. To instil a culture, service design and communications which are Disbenefits • Goal 1. To instil a culture, service design and communications which are customer focussed • Impact on customers Disbenefit Mitigation or opportunities Some customers will need to travel further • • • Additional travel for customers will be kept to a minimum as Customer Services will develop to respond to information requests and simple transactions at both locations and pre application advice by Officers in the Planning Service could be delivered at both offices. If travel is needed then customers will need to travel a maximum of 9 additional miles which in the context of other Local Planning Authorities is not considered far, this view is shared by TRA, the external Planning Consultants supporting this review Further development of self service and advice will reduce the need for Face to Face contact May not be possible for the Customer and Members to visit the Planning Service and another non Planning Services in one visit • This issue applies to all services as the shared services are distributed across two locations and could be considered as part of the broader review of accommodation A potential drop in initial satisfaction as it will be more obvious that more information is available on CDC Planning records than SBDC • This will only persist for a limited period and in time the provision of information will be the same as the service is shared and as the digitisation project progresses 50

Disbenefits • Goal 4. Processes that are robust, effective, efficient, make best use of Disbenefits • Goal 4. Processes that are robust, effective, efficient, make best use of technology, are common across the two authorities, easy to understand consistently applied Disbenefit Mitigation or opportunities If processes around the Planning Committee are not aligned this will be difficult for Officers to administer and presents risks for the efficiency of the service and Members • • • There is the opportunity to apply best practice to both Planning Authorities This would provide an opportunity for Members to demonstrate to Planning staff that change applies to all aspects of the Planning Service There is an opportunity to simplify the process for staff and this would help greatly with implementation of a shared service 51

Disbenefits • Goal 5. A strong and stable team with a clear sense of Disbenefits • Goal 5. A strong and stable team with a clear sense of direction where the staff are valued, respected, motivated and challenged in providing a high quality service • Impact on Planning staff Disbenefit Mitigation or opportunities There could be a short term impact on staff stability • Turnover level will be closely monitored Impact on staff commuting arrangements • Two year relocation allowance Uncertainty will have an impact on morale • • Open, fair and transparent approach Careful management and pace of the change The scale of the implementation task might be daunting for some staff • Careful appointment to the leadership positions in the service Temporary implementation team Staff concerns about having to work to two Local Plans until there is a Joint Local Plan and the practical issues associated with working to two Planning Committee cycles • • Have not proposed a cross boundary team Learning from other shared Planning Services Two Local Plans will be in place for a limited period Area teams will be split on a District basis whilst two Local Plans in place Staff concerns about recruitment, development opportunities and interesting work being impacted as a result of a strategic sites team • • • High threshold for strategic applications Possible rotation of staff into the team Flexibility of use of the team when workloads are low • 52

Disbenefits Disbenefit Impact on Members Mitigation or opportunities Would create increased travel time for Disbenefits Disbenefit Impact on Members Mitigation or opportunities Would create increased travel time for some Members • to visit the office (9 additional miles) Use of email and telephony 53

Risks and issues for implementation 54 Risks and issues for implementation 54

Ref Risks (staff, leadership, customer) Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score Staff instability Ref Risks (staff, leadership, customer) Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score Staff instability 3 3 9 Staff morale 3 3 9 1 – low 3 - high 1 The implementation creates staff instability and impacts on performance and retention of knowledge 2 The implementation undermines staff morale 3 Staff do not buy-in to the shared team and new culture Staff unity 2 3 6 4 There is the view that one authority is being favoured over another and / or their approach dominates the new ways of working Staff unity 2 1 2 5 Staff are not clear about the implementation process and what change might mean for them Staff engagement 2 3 6 6 There is a failure to communicate to staff in an effective and timely manner Staff engagement 1 3 3 7 Staff do not engage positively in the implementation Staff engagement 2 2 4 8 Managers are not able, as a team or individually, to meet the challenge and innovation is insufficiently unlocked to meet the vision Leadership 1 3 3 9 Customers are not adequately engaged and their needs and perspective not understood Customer 1 2 2 10 Changes are not adequately communicated to the customer Customer 1 2 2 55

Risks (Members) Ref Risk Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 – low Risks (Members) Ref Risk Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 – low 3 - high 11 Lack of Members consensus and agreement about harmonisation of Planning processes and procedures Members 2 2 4 12 Processes around the Planning Committee are not aligned, this will be difficult for Officers to administer and presents risks for the efficiency of the service and complaints Members 2 2 4 13 Failure to manage expectations of Members about the impact of implementation on service performance Members 2 3 6 14 Members do not recognise that this is a challenging implementation and want a quicker and smoother implementation than can be achieved in practice Members 2 2 4 15 Member governance is too heavy and slows down implementation and a harmonised approach Members 1 2 2 16 Member governance is too light and implementation lacks direction and political sensitivity Members 1 2 2 56

Risks (Inertia, time) Ref Risk Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 – Risks (Inertia, time) Ref Risk Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 – low 3 - high 17 Resistance to change and wanting to preserve the status quo Inertia 2 2 4 18 Being stuck in interim states of partial integration e. g. just co-locating but not harmonising processes, systems and the approach Inertia 2 2 4 19 Managers and Improvement posts are not in place in time for systems integration and process development work Time 1 2 2 20 Implementation takes too long and momentum is lost Time 2 2 4 21 Timescales are unrealistic and activities are squeezed to fit into top down imposed deadlines rather than activities driving timescales Time 2 2 4 22 Insufficient time is dedicated to new process development Time 2 2 4 57

Risks (Service resourcing) Ref Risk Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 – Risks (Service resourcing) Ref Risk Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 – low 3 - high 23 Underestimation of staff resources required to meet acceptable performance levels Service resourcing 1 3 3 24 Over estimation of the scale of efficiencies which could be achieved and realised as FTE savings Service resourcing 2 2 4 25 Implementation did not account for fluctuations in Planning demand - forecasts based on historic data Service resourcing 2 2 4 26 Changes to legislation impacts on volume of service demand the resilience of the shared service Service resourcing 2 2 4 58

Ref Risks (Implementation resourcing) Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 – low Ref Risks (Implementation resourcing) Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 – low 3 - high 27 Insufficient management capacity to deliver the service and implement the shared service Implementation and Service resourcing 2 2 4 28 Implementation is under-resourced Implementation resourcing 1 3 3 29 There is insufficient ICT support / capacity (internal) Implementation resourcing 1 3 3 30 There is insufficient ICT support / capacity (external) Implementation resourcing 1 3 3 31 There is insufficient HR support capacity both admin and professional HR advice Implementation resourcing 1 3 3 32 There is insufficient Customer Services support capacity Implementation resourcing 1 2 2 33 There is insufficient Facilities Management support and office move capacity Implementation resourcing 1 2 2 34 There is insufficient Communications / website development support Implementation resourcing 1 3 3 35 There is insufficient support for process development Implementation resourcing 1 3 3 59

Ref Risks (Programme and project Theme management) Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 Ref Risks (Programme and project Theme management) Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 – low 3 - high 36 Programme management arrangements are not effectively established Programme management 1 3 3 37 Programme board does not seek adequate assurances Programme management 1 3 3 38 Strong and robust project management arrangements are not put in place from the start Project management 1 3 3 39 Lack of quality feedback on progress from activities / sub projects Project management 2 2 4 40 Project planning estimation is not realistic Project Planning 2 2 4 41 Too many activities running at the same time using the same resources Project Planning 2 2 4 42 Insufficient time is allowed for project management activities Project Planning 2 2 4 43 Project roles are not sufficiently resourced / secured Project management role resourcing 1 3 3 44 Individuals can’t perform their project roles effectively in addition to their substantive role Project management role resourcing 2 3 6 45 Poor risk and issues management Project risk management 2 2 4 46 Failure to learn from previous shared service implementations and the lessons from other shared Planning Services Project lessons learned 1 3 3 60

Risks (Finance, delivery and performance) Ref Risk Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score Risks (Finance, delivery and performance) Ref Risk Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 – low 3 - high 47 Redundancy and pension strain costs undermines the business case Finance 1 3 3 48 Job evaluation does not match the estimated gradings for new jobs and diminishes the business case Finance 2 2 4 49 Income estimates are not realised Finance 2 2 4 50 Staff struggle to work to two Local Plans (for the period that two Local Plans are in place, estimate joint Local Plan to be in place late 2018) Delivery 1 2 2 51 A risk based approach is not effectively implemented and has adverse consequences (e. g. complaints, appeals, costs) Delivery 2 2 4 52 Disruption from implementation has an impact on performance Performance 2 2 4 53 Disruption from implementation coincides with recent government ‘Special Measures’ regime for non major applications Performance 2 2 4 61

Risks (ICT Systems, innovation, Customer Services) Ref Risk Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Risks (ICT Systems, innovation, Customer Services) Ref Risk Theme Likelihood Rating Impact Rating Total Score 1 – low 3 - high 54 New systems are insufficiently tested ICT Systems 1 2 2 55 New systems do not meet user needs ICT Systems 1 2 2 56 Digitisation of information is not addressed ICT Systems 1 3 3 57 Best practice is not applied Innovation 1 2 2 58 Customer Services are unable to support / meet Planning Services requirements Customer Services 1 2 2 62

Trevor Roberts Associates – assurance on the business case (key extracts from TRA report) Trevor Roberts Associates – assurance on the business case (key extracts from TRA report) • The business case is well-presented and robust. It sets out when financial savings will be achieved and clearly identifies the initial investment and support that will be required to achieve a successful outcome. The estimate for pre-application income at CDC is both realistic and deliverable. • The business plan properly identifies the need to reconfigure existing arrangement on ICT with IDOX. It also identifies that these costs will be significant, especially in the short term. They are however necessary for the successful implementation of the wider package. • Recommends that the shared service is located in King George V House in Amersham. It identifies three reasons for this recommendation. In process terms, I see this building as the ideal venue for the delivery of this important frontline service and for the same reasons set out in the presentation. It provides the best possible opportunity to deliver the high-quality Planning Service that is planned for the two districts. • The significant risks are correctly identified and will be managed throughout the process and into implementation. • The overall effect of the business case is to provide assurance and confidence that the process will be successfully implemented. It streamlines the current operations whilst retaining a focus on both performance and quality. It also sets out proposals to deliver a positive and dynamic enforcement team. 63

End of business case appendix 64 End of business case appendix 64