2. The Bond Company, Central Birmingham
24-25 May 2016
Improving the connection between e-planning
(processing and websites) and reducing invalid
applications
John Danahay
Regional Account Manager - Midlands
t: 07767 647218, e: john.danahay@planningportal.co.uk
3. e-planning and reducing invalid
applications
1. Main reasons for invalidation
2. Feedback from non-agent submitters - Planning Portal user survey
3. What can you do?
Encourage applicants to use the new improved Planning Portal and Buy a Plan service
Remove the application fee cheque payment option
Add focused website content to improve application completeness & quality
Combine and share guidance across neighbouring authority websites
Make sure your PAR link is on the Planning Portal
4. If all else fails…
4. Main reasons for invalid
applications
1. Fee not received (Biggest single reason is matching cheque to application)
2. Missing information against Planning Application Requirements
3. Document does not meet standards (Particularly plans and drawings)
4. Incorrect fee
5. Wrong form or incorrectly filled in
What can we do using e-planning and LPA websites to reduce these issues?
5. Planning Portal user feedback
about the application process
Planning Portal online survey of 6000 non-agent online application submitters in
March 2016
447 respondents (7.5%)
Title: Help us to improve the planning application system
Purpose: Identify Planning Portal system and LPA issues which cause delays to the
processing and registration of applications
6. Planning Portal user feedback
How did you find out about the Planning Portal
online application service?
53.76%
15.73%
13.62%
3.52%
8.22%
5.16%
7. Planning Portal user feedback
Did the LPA validate your application first time or
were there problems?
37.44%
3.52%
28.89%
13.82%
3.77%
12.56%
8. Planning Portal user feedback
If there were delays how long did it take to sort
things out with the LPA?
34.46%
4.96%
25.33%
35.25%
9. Why remove the option to pay
fees by cheque?
The biggest single cause of delays in validation and registration
(Perhaps even more so since the massive increase in electronic applications?)
Requires staff resource to reconcile and chase missing cheques
Cheques have been phased out in many other area of business
In terms of customer service, major impact is on agents who have traditionally
passed a cheque from their client to avoid the payment going through their accounts
Like the online submission service itself there has initially been resistance but an
increasing number of agents have already moved to electronic payment
10. Removing the option to pay fees
by cheque – alternative payment
methods?
1. Integrated electronic payment via the Planning Portal
2. Telephone payment
3. Electronic payment by the Council website
4. BACS payments for larger fees
The Planning Portal are looking at future options to enable an agent’s client to be
involved in the integrated payment workflow, and also facilitating a fully integrated
electronic payment service/payment on account service that transfers funds
immediately to the Planning Authority on submission of the application.
11. Removing the option to pay fees
by cheque – LPA example
At Hammersmith and Fulham all fees for online applications are now paid
electronically or by telephone (More than 75% of all applications)
The Cheque payment option on the Planning Portal is switched off. Agents prefer
their client to pay by telephone or via the Council website
Planning Portal applications direct from members of the public are most likely to be
paid electronically rather than by telephone
Pro-active approach - If ‘payment by phone’ is selected and a payment is not
received an officer will ring the agent/applicant the next morning to take a payment
12. Removing the option to pay fees
by cheque - implementation
1. Make sure the alternative payment options are correctly configured and internal
payment collection and reconciliation procedures are thoroughly tested in advance
2. Contact all planning agents to set a date for the change. Highlight the benefits to
them and their clients, demonstrate best practice and use example agents at
forums/workshops before the change
3. Remove the cheque payment option from the Council website. (Can be done
before going live because most planning agents won’t visit this and it will test your
systems with the smaller numbers of direct applicants)
4. Let the Planning Portal know in advance so your Account Manager and our
Technical Support Team can assist if required
Any Questions?
13. How can your website help to
reduce invalid applications?
1. Easy to find guidance, particularly Local Planning Application Requirements (And
please make sure the link is on the Planning Portal and up-to-date)
2. Easy to use guidance and examples of good practice for plans, drawings and
other documents
3. Consistency with neighbouring LPAs – Multi-authority Planning Policies,
common guidance and standards (Agent feedback suggests that inconsistency
between neighbouring authorities is a prime cause of missing information or
formatting/presentation errors)
4. Possible moves towards shared services, website hosting and content? See
Staffordshire Moorlands/High Peak Example
14.
15. Very rare! - Bath & North
Somerset provide a pictorial
guide to their requirements
for plans and drawings on
their website
16. A focus on types of plans
and drawings required by
Bristol City Council
17. More detailed information
from Bristol City Council
about presentation of
Plans and Drawings
Many LPAs only have a
copy of the National
guidelines
21. Make sure a link to your PAR is
on the Planning Portal
22. If all else fails…
In November 2015 Birmingham City Council introduced an administrative charge
for invalid applications!
23.
24.
25. Birmingham’s administrative
charge for invalid applications -
details
Sliding scale of fees to be retained to cover administration costs - £30/£50/£150 for
small/medium/large-scale applications
Held application retained for 4 weeks before returning, and withdrawing as invalid
on their system, and the administration fee retained
Mostly agents (and smaller applications) by a significant margin 54/7
Jury is still out on whether it has substantially effected submitters behaviour, but it
does generate a small amount of additional income
Has anyone else implemented a similar charge elsewhere?
Focus on LPA websites tends to be on access to submitted applications via the online register, with less attention paid to the getting the application right first time.
LPAs typically invalidate 60% of all applications on first receipt. The vast majority of these are householder and minor full application types. Approximately 80% of applications are submitted by planning agents, with 20% submitted direct by members of the public and businesses but surprisingly little difference in invalidation rates Reasons 4 and 5 have been reduced by the Planning Portal
Reminded us how important it is to have the right links on the Local Planning Authority Website. 2/3 of respondents found the application service through the web.
NB Missing payments much reduced because most non-agent applicants pay online! 42% of problems related to missing documents and errors on documents – better guidance required?
Impacts on agents more than direct applicants Traditionally do not want the fee to go through their books, but that is changing All LPAs have reported an increase in electronic payments by agents over the years Time to go the next step?
Impacts on agents more than direct applicants Traditionally do not want the fee to go through their books, but that is changing All LPAs have reported an increase in electronic payments by agents over the years Time to go the next step?
Focus tends to be on searching for registered applications. Generally less content relating to getting an application right first time (Does this reflect that 80% of applications are by agents?)
LPAs typically invalidate 60% of all applications on first receipt. The vast majority of these are householder and minor full application types. Approximately 80% of applications are submitted by planning agents, with 20% submitted direct by members of the public and businesses but surprisingly little difference in invalidation rates Reasons 4 and 5 have been reduced by the Planning Portal
Birmingham City Council – excellent content supporting the submission of a Planning Information. Planning Portal Smarter Planning Champions!
But further down the page they mention their administrative charge
