Transparency data

Board meeting minutes 19 May 2022 - The Planning Inspectorate

Updated 17 April 2024

Applies to England

Minutes 21 July 2022 date

Title of meeting	Planning Inspectorate Board Meetings
Date	19 May 2022
Venue	Virtual
Chair	Trudi Elliott (TE)

Present	Planning Inspectorate Board Meeting
Stephen Tetlow (ST)	Non-Executive Director
Rebecca Driver (RD)	Non-Executive Director
Sally Dixon (SD)	Non-Executive Director
Navees Rahman	Director, Corporate Services
Sean Canavan	Director, Strategy

In attendance

Head of Strategy & Change (KT)

Head of Operations (TW)

Governance Administration Officer (DP)

Strategic Governance Officer NP)

Chief Digital Information Officer (RG)

Group Operations Lead (RP)

Operations Lead – National Infrastructure & Project Speed (SGu)

Head of Central Operations (DPr)

DLHUC Sponsorship Team (RW) (Observing)

Apologies	Planning Inspectorate Board Meeting
Sarah Richards (SR)	Chief Executive
Graham Stallwood (GS)	Director, Operations
Simon Gallagher (SG)	Director, Planning (DLUHC)

1. Welcome and Declaration of Interests

The Chair called for Declarations of Interest, of which there were none.

2. Minutes of March Board and action tracker

2.1 No further comments were raised on the March Board minutes or action tracker.

Agreed:

2a) The minutes from the March Board meeting are an accurate record of the meeting.

3. Audit and Risk Assurance Committee’s Report to the Board

3.1 As Chair of the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC), RD presented the Committee’s report the Board. The Committee’s opinion is, as Accounting Officer, SR can be satisfied and have confidence with the processes the Inspectorate uses, risk is managed in an appropriate way and whilst there could be improvement, in practice the Committee is satisfied.

3.2 The Committee reviewed the balance of activities ARAC has undertaken, when compared to the previous year, the proportion of time shifted with less time spent on financial and annual reporting and risk management, this is a reflection of the time spent reformatting the annual report and changes to risk management processes.

3.3 RD asked the Board to confirm it also receives the level of assurance through ARAC and if the balance of activities is right or are there any areas of focus for the Committee?

3.4 The Board confirmed they are satisfied with the level of assurance received through ARAC and the balance of activities are correct.

3.5. There was discussion around the effectiveness of ARAC and the potential to recruit an independent member to give an independent voice with an financial background who might bring different challenges to the Committee. Another area of effectiveness review is to improve the Committee’s terms of reference, these will be presented to the June Board for approval.

3.6 TE explained the previous round of recruitment to bring in an independent member as a development opportunity had been unsuccessful. If we look to formally appointment, this would be a ministerial decision. With up and coming Non-Executive recruitment round approaching, KT explained we will secure the skills through the campaign.

Agreed:

3a) The Board confirmed they are satisfied with the level of assurance received through ARAC and the balance of activities are correct.

4. Strategic Assurance Panel meeting updates for the Board:

April – Benefits Management

4.1 As Chair of the Panel, ST explained the Board received assurance on the benefits realisation plan which was an excellent summary of progress. These are the key points for the Board:

• Good compliance with the Green Book on benefits management, more rigour and analysis needed on the non-financial benefits and dis-benefits management, this is important.

• Need for a more mature structure, clarity on outcomes and benefits tracking.

• More clarity at the start of projects of objectives and vision of benefits.

• Use of optimism bias.

• Issue on overall tracking of benefits and delivery in terms of resource across the organisation. Make sure taking a more risk-based approach to allocating resources.

May – Cyber Security Approach and Digital and Data resourcing and recruitment

4.2 As Chair of the Panel, ST explained there was a good complex discussion, lots of good work has already taken place. The panel received a good level of assurance on the accreditation completed so far. These are the key points for the Board:

• Whilst Cyber Essentials plus accreditation has been achieved, further focus is needed on the wider aspects of cyber.

• Board would like to see more rigor around the cyber security risks and exposures, to be reviewed at ARAC in line with Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA) review.

• Level of resource required to deliver has been identified, specific recruitments are taking place to fulfil the Cyber Security Framework and current vacancies. The panel discussed the various options available to gain the skills.

• The panel did not have much sight of the training taking place and its effectiveness and would like a view on this.

• Suggestions were made to work with the department to increase collective capacity and draw on the departments experience and expertise.

Agreed:

4a) The Board agreed benefits tracking and management is an area to be monitored and will becoming increasingly critical.

4b) The Board agreed resourcing and recruiting cyber expertise is a risk.

Actions:

4c) NP and NR to bring Cyber Security update to a later Board meeting.

5. Department of Levelling of Up, Housing and Communities update

5.1 In SG’s absence, TE gave the following update provided by SG:

• Working to understand the impact of the Minister for Government Efficiency’s announcement on workforce numbers.

• Restructure has taken place, SG and colleagues are part of Emran Mian’s Regeneration Group within DLUHC, working with the teams focussed on local growth funding, brownfield funding etc.

• Focus on Local Plan press, working with SR and the team to gather the facts.

5.2 TE asked how the announcement had impacted the organisation, NR explained communications were shared with the Senior Leadership Group, setting out what we know which is not much at the moment, and we will further engage with the organisation at the next all staff briefing. We expect to know more following a HR meeting with the department.

6. Performance dashboard, including Operational Performance

6.1 High court challenges

• 127 challenges received for the financial year 2021/22. There were 123 outcomes, 44% were refused, 155 were quashed/ remitted for redetermination.

• 11 new challenges were received in April 2022.

• Lessons learnt from challenges are shared with Inspectors via the Professional Leads.

6.2 Received, closed and open cases

• During February and March, we closed more cases than we received, during April we received more cases than we closed, which was expected due to the Easter holiday period.

• Written representation cases continue to be received in the same pattern and within our projections. During April, we have received more hearing and inquiries when compared to previous months.

• RD asked if the rise in hearing cases, is due to the change in the hearing process? TW explained it was too early to tell if this was having an impact.

6.3 Timeliness

• Median time for planning appeals decided by written representations was 25 weeks (April 2022) which is comparable performance over the last two years.

• Hearing cases – was 108 weeks, higher than performance over the last two years, this is due to enforcement cases which were harder to progress during the pandemic.

• Inquiry cases – the numbers decided are smaller, the end-to-end median time in April was 40 weeks which is variable across the case types.

• Focus will be on the 90th percentile and variability in performance, looking more forensically at the data with Inspector Managers to understand what is happening with cases and making sure flags are happening in the system.

6.4 Whilst reviewing the performance projections, RD suggested reviewing the averages/ medians regularly. RG agreed, but due to resourcing this will be slowed.

6.5 It was agreed the data is useful, ST asked are we doing enough to get on track with our continuous improvement and agreed to pick up as part of item 8 on the agenda.

6.6 As part of the work to review performance and timeliness and think about what we can do to improve, TW is also gathering information to inform recruitment challenges and why people do not apply for inspector roles. TW is gathering this information via a blog on the .gov.uk website.

6.7 ST asked for further information to be added to the people summary, to give a more strategic view of people in the organisation.

Actions:

6a) TW to return to a later Board with hearing performance data gather during the change to the hearing process.

6b) RG to review the average/ median projections to make sure these are up to date and monitored regularly.

6c) NR/ RG to add the following people information to the July update to the Board:

• Data on vacancies, forecast and fill rates, turnover and time take to recruit.

7. Speeding up decisions on planning appeals needing hearings

7.1 TW and RP gave the following update to the Board on the timeliness of planning hearing casework and reducing the number of older hearing cases in the system:

• The team are taking an agile approach to improve the time taken to process planning hearing appeals. From the 1st April a dedicated casework team has been established to process appeals in an end to end time no longer than 24 weeks and within the time frames the Minister has set.

• Learning points to date have been interesting and have included learning from legacy casework, Rosewell review and making sure the initial appeal procedure assessments are made and appeals started promptly, setting the timetable and hearing date from the outset.

• The new approach was shared with the main stakeholders, local planning authorities and an article published on the .gov.uk website. Little feedback has been received so far; we anticipate queries about legacy casework. We are tailoring our communications to main parties to make things clearer.

• All hearing appeals submitted on the 1st April are being tracked, any early issues can be identified and resolved to keep on track and issue a decision in 24 weeks.

7.2 The Board raised the following points:

• RD raised the need for a proactive communication strategy, which will be important on why and how we are processing hearing appeals from the 1st April, to explain the variation in timeliness whilst we work through the different approaches. RP explained alongside this we are adding more resource, updating the training plan and have a targeted approach to processing legacy cases.

• In communicating with customers, TE suggested articulating in line with the Rosewell review. From the 1st April we are treating all new hearing cases with a Rosewell style of approach which has delivered changes. Those in the planning sector understand the Rosewell changes. RP explained communications are being tailored on a case-by-case basis with appellants which does explain we are applying the Rosewell principles. The Board advised TW and RP to issue plenty of communications around the new approach.

• RD encouraged regular reviews of the process and targets, taking the opportunity to feed in and schedule the improvements we want to see to keep momentum.

• RD asked if we are being ambitious enough in terms of what we are asking of the system, could we decide cases quicker? On scheduling, have you talked to any organisations about how they scheduling? RP explained the longer-term ambition is to decide appeals in a shorter timescale, but there are challenges around Inspector availability which we are ironing out. Learning from the first events and decisions will give us more detail to review the timescales. On scheduling, TW has spoken to other organisations about the systems in use and will return to the Board with further feedback.

Actions:

7a) TW and RP to share any communication with the organisation on findings of the new hearing approach with the NEDs.

7b) TW & RP to return to the Board in November with update on:

• approach to hearing casework, findings/ tracking, performance and next steps

• the scheduling system

8. Planning Reform, Project Speed & Energy Strategy update – (OFFICIAL SENSITIVE)

8.1 OFFICIAL SENSITIVE item captured as part two minutes.

9. Environmental Action Plan

9.1 DP gave the following update to the Board:

• The Environment Management System (EMS) has been developed; the next priority is the implementation of the actions identified in the directorate level environmental action plans.

• When the plans are approved, they will be published on the intranet.

• Directorates will work at their own pace to deliver the actions and works with the level of resource we have available.

• Through the Change Portfolio, the sustainability framework is being applied to all projects, which is a positive step and benefit of the work so far.

9.2 The Board raised the following points:

• TE gave feedback on behalf of SG, whilst these plans are very good, SG asked about the significant contribution our work has on the environment through National Infrastructure, accessing plans and applications. This needs to be a realistic priority for the organisation. TE felt, from experience, more dedicated resource is needed to drive this forward than is currently allocated.

• SD suggested DP explore working from home vs working from the office and the decisions that can be made. DP explained the net zero ambition and work around benchmarking our current position on carbon impacts helps us to understand in more detail and make more informed decisions, without the resource in place it is a struggle to deliver and priorities are stretched.

• TE asked NR how much dedicated resource could be allocated to this work. NR and DP agreed to work together to understand what will make a difference and add to priorities and look at the options and opportunities to recruit, what is the ask and feed this into the business plan cycle.

Actions:

9a) DP and RW to discuss how to get traction through best practice, job descriptions etc. RW to share experience and insight with DP.

9b) NP with DP with to update the corporate governance paper templates with a section on sustainability and environmental impact when making recommendations.

9c) DP with Executive Team to look at the capacity to deliver our commitments, what are the opportunities to bring in dedicated resource.

10. Forward look, review of meeting, AOB

10.1 The Board thanked all colleagues for the updates and their attendance at Board.

Agreed:

10a) NP to add:

July Board

• Vacancy data to be included in the July dashboard

September Board

• Planning Reform resourcing

November Board

• Change to hearing processes and performance update

Executive Team forward look

• Review of priorities, resourcing and proposals to make sure we deliver our environmental commitments including net zero and climate change.

Audit and Risk Assurance Committee forward look

• Review of Cyber Security risk, in line with GIAA audit at ARAC.

Next meeting: 09 June 2022