Board meeting minutes 26 September 2019 - The Planning Inspectorate
Updated 17 September 2024
Applies to England
© Crown copyright 2024
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/board-meeting-minutes-the-planning-inspectorate/board-meeting-minutes-26-september-2019-the-planning-inspectorate
Minutes FINAL (24 October 2019)
| Title of meeting | Planning Inspectorate Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Date | 26 September 2019 |
| Venue | EX-IPC Boardroom, Temple Quay House, Bristol |
| Chair | Trudi Elliott (TE) |
| Present | |
|---|---|
| David Holt (DH) | Non-Executive Director |
| Sally Dixon (SD) | Non-Executive Director |
| Sarah Richards (SR) | Chief Executive |
| Navees Rahman (NR) | Director of Corporate Services |
| Simon Gallagher (SG) | Director of Planning, MHCLG |
| Neil Hemington (NH) | Chief Planner, Welsh Government |
| In attendance | |
|---|---|
| Natasha Perrett (NP) | Board secretary |
| Graham Stallwood (GS) | Director of Operations (item 3) |
| Tim Guy (TG) | Director of Transformation (item 4) |
| Sean Canavan (SCa) | Head of Strategy and Change (item 5) |
| Rhian Jones (RJ) | Customer Insights Lead (item 6) |
| Christine Thorby (CT) | Director of Strategy (item 6) |
| Observer(s) | |
|---|---|
| Rebecca Driver (RD) | Non-Executive Director Designate |
| Apologies | |
|---|---|
| Stephen Tetlow (ST) | Non-Executive Director |
Part One: Schedule of Actions – 25 January 2018
Action: 15. Circulate draft targets submission to Board members for comment.
Owner: Transferred to Graham Stallwood (previous owner Sarah Richards)
Para: 6.8
Timeframe: On hold pending SR19 submission
Part One: Schedule of Actions – 29 November 2018
Action: 2. Hold a session on risk matters with SLTs in quarter one next year.
Owner: David Holt & Navees Rahman
Para: 3.12
Timeframe: Looking for alternative dates
Part One: Schedule of Actions – 31 January 2019
Action: 5. Recommendations 1 and 2 – Jo Esson (transferred to Karin Takel) to review with ET and agree timescale to review the Governance Structure. Considering the new Director roles and mapping across to the sub-committee and aligning with the ET structure and running order of meetings to suit business needs.
Owner: Karin Takel
Para: 8.1
Timeframe: 13th November for 21st November Board
Action: 6. Recommendations 3-14 - deliver these recommendations from the review.
Owner: Karin Takel/Natasha Perrett
Para: 8.1
Timeframe: Closed – 08/10/19 – will continue as part of action 5.
Action: 7. Look at the induction process for the new NEDs and to make sure it is less staff intensive and to include Board engagement sessions with full establishment of ET and full establishment of NEDs. If necessary, plan in two phases to allow for appointments to be made.
Owner: Navees Rahman & Chris Thorby (was Jo Esson)
Para: 3.12
Timeframe: Phase one complete; Phase two in progress including MHCLG induction
Part One: Schedule of Actions – 21 March 2019
Action: 3. Benchmark AWDL data across other organisations in the Civil Service.
Owner: Navees Rahman/Katie Hartwright
Para: 4.2
Timeframe: Complete - Civil Service Average Working Days Lost now stands at 7. Our average is significantly lower than this at 6.1 days.
Action: 6. Produce a performance recovery communication for the NEDs to share with customers when necessary.
Owner: Transferred to Tracey Jones (was Sean Canavan/Tim Guy)
Para: 5.7
Timeframe: In progress – will be circulated by NP to the Board.
Part One: Schedule of Actions – 23 May 2019
Action: 1. Follow up action 1 of the March minutes with CT. Consider and agree with Executive Team (ET) if political sensitivity issues should be including on the SRR.
Owner: Natasha Perrett
Para: 2.1
Timeframe: Awaiting update
Action: 2. Discuss with TT and Simon Levi (previously KH) the impact on future recruitment and how we recruit for specific vacancies in Wales.
Owner: Navees Rahman
Para: 4.6
Timeframe: Awaiting update
Action: 3. Come back to the July Board:
- Consider how to deliver information and red flags to the Board
- Consider how the data should be used by the NEDs when discussing and making decisions about performance improvement.
- Demonstrate the table containing all casework targets and performance.
- Add inputs and outputs to give the Board visibility of the trend of the backlog
- Income needs to be in tabular format.
- People measure – to be incorporated from the People Strategy.
- Customer measures – to be incorporated.
- User friendly commentaries.
- Include a list of information and when the Board can expect it to be included.
Owner: Navees Rahman/Duane Oakes
Para: 5.2, 5.5, 5.7
Timeframe: 13th November for 21st November Board
Action: 5. Discuss funding and underspends, not recruiting enough Inspectors and performance recovery at the July Board.
Owner: Navees Rahman/Caroline Bee
Para: 6.4
Timeframe: 13th November for 21st November Board
Part One: Schedule of Actions – 25 July 2019
Action: 3. Arrange for the Bridget Rosewell updated plan to be circulated to the Board once published.
Owner: Simone Cowdery/Natasha Perrett
Para: 3.5
Timeframe: Complete – circulated 07/10/19
Action: 5. Speak with the Communications team on when we should communicate our emerging positive story.
Owner: Sean Canavan
Para: 4.1
Timeframe: Complete – GS provided updated at September Board meeting
Action: 9. Produce an information flow chart for applicants to be shared with the Board.
Owner: Pauleen Lane
Para: 5.2
Timeframe: Awaiting update
Action: 10. Look at a deep dive workshop with the NEDs, in August, around culture change.
Owner: Sarah Richards
Para: 6.1
Timeframe: Complete – workshop taking place on 24th October.
Action: 13. Invite the NEDs to the OnePINS event in January.
Owner: Simone Cowdery/Natasha Perrett
Para: 7.4
Timeframe: NEDs invited to ATE.
Part One: Schedule of Actions – 26 September 2019
Action: 1. Update the narrative to our customers, making clear how long appeals are taking based on current data, including that there will also be focus to improve enforcement performance.
Owner: Graham Stallwood
Para: 3.4. 3.9, 3.10
Timeframe: 31 October
Action: 2. Provide the Board with data on complex cases.
Owner: Graham Stallwood
Para: 3.6
Timeframe: 13th November for 21st November Board
Action: 3. Provide an ODT update at the November Board meeting, including findings from Stephen Tetlow’s review.
Owner: Tim Guy
Para: 4.8, 4.9
Timeframe: 13th November for 21st November Board
Action: 4. Provide ODT update in between Board meetings.
Owner: Tim Guy
Para: 4.9
Timeframe: October, December, February
Action: 5. Develop a delivery plan for the Board which sets out how we will get to the 2024 vision.
Owner: Rhian Jones
Para: 6.4
Timeframe: NP to check date – propose - 13th November for 21st November Board
Action: 6. Write a narrative for the customer that would be helpful to set out:
- what we will do and when
- devise as a document for customers to read so they understand what we seek to achieve, when and how.
- what the journey will look like from customer perspective, what will it look like for a customer each year.
Owner: Rhian Jones
Para: 6.5
Timeframe: NP to check date – propose - 13th November for 21st November Board
Action: 7. Make sure GDPR principles are included in processes.
Owner: Rhian Jones
Para: 6.9
Timeframe: NP to check date – propose - 13th November for 21st November Board
Action: 8. Review the Framework document to make sure changes to the committee structure are possible.
Owner: Karin Takel
Para: 7.6
Timeframe: 31 October
Action: 9. Consider:
- is the formal structure set out, of the Board and ARAC enough in the longer term, have we got it right;
- going forward, do we need another Committee to support the Board and alongside Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, if agreed draft ToR and what would it be called, consider a more workshop style approach;
- have we captured the standing items from the People and Customer Quality and Professional Standards Committee;
- collaborative engagement with MHCLG colleagues through committees, how to maintain this;
- frequency and length of Board meetings and when needed;
- make time for NEDs and Board members to have engagement with teams, create a structure that helps that to happen.
Owner: Karin Takel
Para: 7.7
Timeframe: 13th November for 21st November Business Plan session
Action: 10. Include at the Business Planning session in November how to take forward Committee items and reporting.
Owner: Karin Takel
Para: 7.7
Timeframe: In progress by 13th November for 21st November Business Plan session
Action: 11. A short Board to be held to discuss Brexit and the strategic environment and to review Heathrow risk. October People Committee to commence at 10.30am.
Owner: Natasha Perrett
Para: 8a
Timeframe: Complete
1.0 Welcome and Declaration of Interests
1.1 The Chair welcomed the Board introducing RD. Apologies were received from ST.
1.2 The Chair called for Declarations of Interest, of which there were none.
2.0 Minutes of July Board meeting
2.1 No further comments were received on the July Board minutes.
Agreed:
2a) The July Board minutes are an accurate record of the meeting.
3.0 Performance Recovery update
3.1 Performance improvement continues as a result of additional inspectors, changes to processes and outputs from the Inquiries review.
3.2 April to June the Inspectorate issued a record number of appeal decisions since we started to measure decisions issued in 2010.
3.3 A meeting with Bridget Rosewell (BR) was held to review progress against the implementation of the Inquiries review recommendations, BR was pleased to see decisions had been issued within the 26 week timescale.
3.4 The July to September narrative to our customers was revised, to make the customer experience clear for planning appeals, as performance improvement continues. We will also focus on performance improvement for our enforcement appeals.
3.5 The Board discussed why there are still older cases in the system, GS explained this was due to complex issues which are outside of our control, such as the probate process.
3.6 Whilst the Board have had sight of progress and performance improvement, DH said it would be helpful to have sight of the complexities, so the Board understands the cases which are impacting on timescales.
3.7 On average decisions are issued four weeks after the event has taken place. Use of the new MiPINS performance software has helped the senior leadership team pinpoint issues and take action.
3.8 SD asked what happens around staffing when caseloads return to normal and operational improvements are implemented; what modelling and planning is taking place? GS explained that analysis informed the recruitment exercise; this plus the Organisation Design will see us reach a point where we have enough inspectors and we are now looking at when that might happen.
3.9 TE explained we need to tell appellants more clearly what performance they might expect based on our data, the message should make clear when you submit an appeal how long it will take. GS agreed we need to do this soon.
3.10 When revising the the narrative to our customers, SG asked GS to be clear that we are starting the enforcement improvement journey.
3.11 SD asked why the operational risk had moved from amber to red. GS explained this was due to enforcement casework not hitting target next year. SR explained we also need to consider performance improvement in other areas of our work such as Local Plans, we are working with Local Authorities to learn lessons.
3.12 SG and NH updated the Board on Ministerial priorities.
Agreed:
3a) GS to update the narrative to our customers, making clear how long appeals are taking based on current data, including that there will also be focus to improve enforcement performance.
3b) GS to provide the Board with data on complex cases.
4.0 Operational Delivery Transformation (ODT) update
4.1 Following review of ODT and ensuring the project aligns with digital delivery, TG has revised the delivery plan and submitted a business case to MHCLG which received approval in August. The new approach is also supported by Deloitte who are providing independent support.
4.2 18 new s78 written representation appeals have been submitted via the new portal. Feedback has been positive, work is underway to roll out to s78 hearing cases.
4.3 Planning is underway to provide digital services for the Heathrow project and other service design work. TG is reporting amber red against the project at present. Two weeks of planning and developing a robust plan should see the risk in this area improve to amber green.
4.4 The plan will look at activity and cost and will provide a perspective on our capability to deliver. TG explained on capability we will need project managers, business analysts and testers.
4.5 At the end of the s78 hearings work, the Go-Pro team will stop and focus on Heathrow. Preparation work for developers includes collecting and redacting information and making available online. This work will also be useful for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects as these have similar requirements.
4.6 The Board discussed the likelihood of changes to project costs or changes to scope, TG explained costs will be contained, but time scales will move slightly. Initial assessment indicates benefits will not be impacted.
4.7 Redaction of personal data is a risk for the Inspectorate, getting systems in place will mitigate the risk. The team are also looking at our website and link to our back office system to make sure this is robust to deal with the number of submissions received for the Heathrow project.
4.8 DH asked TG if we are confident we can deliver by the end of March. TG explained we are putting everything in place to make this a successful programme. TG agreed to provide an update to the Board at the November Board meeting.
4.9 TE asked TG to provide an update to the Board in between meetings so the Board can monitor and make sure we keep on track. Stephen Tetlow is carrying out independent assurance work, TG will bring this back to the November Board.
Agreed:
4a) TG to provide an ODT update at the November Board meeting, including findings from Stephen Tetlow’s review.
4b) TG to provide ODT update in between Board meetings.
5.0 Organisation Design (OD) update
5.1 Ideal structures were submitted and considered at Executive Team (ET) OD Board on 25th September.
5.2 The designs presented aligned with our principles and considered risks, overlaps, dependencies and assumptions. SG urged consideration of how the structure encouraged engagement with sponsor Governments.
5.3 SD asked if we have benchmarked with other organisations. SR explained we used Civil Service profession benchmarks. OD board has challenged designs to make sure we have the right size team for our organisation.
5.4 Next steps:
- Directors are giving feedback to design leads and Heads of Service today.
- Designs need to be reviewed following OD review.
- Sign off by Design Group Board 8th October.
- Job descriptions to be evaluated.
- Indicative structure to be developed.
- Consultation with staff to take place.
5.5 The framework for mapping and matching has been updated ready for the process. HR have resource to carry out the job evaluation process. The Head of HR will lead the implementation phase.
5.6 SD asked if a change impact assessment has been carried out for the organisation. SR explained change load is monitored and handled carefully by the ET. NR explained lessons learnt from phase one have also been included in phase two.
Agreed:
5a) To note the OD update.
6.0 Customer Strategy
6.1 The customer strategy is in draft. It sets out our governance and accountability and includes feedback and data to drive the strategy. The customer strategy links to our digital delivery programme and aligns with our Strategic Plan putting customers at the heart of what we do.
6.2 The customer strategy will also improve the way customers interaction with the Inspectorate and our internal systems bringing all customer feedback and communications to a single system. The current databases used by different customer teams such as Customer Services and Customer Quality are not linked together, teams are not able to view the full customer journey. Customer feedback channels will also be revised and improved.
6.3 TE asked what we should be doing to make sure the strategy is adopted and to manage expectations. CT explained the view of Design Group is to have a single point of contact for customers and establish an escalation process. Information is also being gathered through ODT on the customer journey.
6.4 DH said it would be helpful for the Board to see the journey from 2019-2024, what is the sequencing, organising of teams and ODT programme improvements and other work that will get us to 2024.
6.5 TE agreed a narrative would be helpful setting out:
- What we will do and when.
- Devise as a document for customers to read so they understand what we seek to achieve, when and how.
- What the journey will look like from customer perspective, what will it look like for a customer each year.
6.6 SD asked what can you do in the meantime whilst you wait for a customer record management system. What small changes can you make at the point of OD change. CT explained we are developing the thinking around this. NR suggested RJ could make use of a business analyst to help develop the business case.
6.7 There was a discussion around dealing with different customers and how to make the best use of the data. SR explained this is already coming through ODT.
6.8 TE said we need to make sure we share the journey with teams and inspectors. We need to explain what we are doing to make the best use of information.
6.9 SD asked RJ to think about GDPR and the use of data, to make sure principles are included in the processes. NR and CT agreed and confirmed GDPR principles are part of project mandates. A GDPR statement is already built into forms through ODT.
Agreed:
6a) RJ to develop a delivery plan for the Board which sets out how we will get to the 2024 vision.
6b) RJ to write a narrative for the customer that would be helpful to set out:
- what we will do and when
- devise as a document for customers to read so they understand what we seek to achieve, when and how.
- what the journey will look like from customer perspective, what will it look like for a customer each year.
6c) RJ to make sure GDPR principles are included in processes.
7.0 Strategic Governance Proposals
7.1 The Governance Review highlighted a number of issues around the scope of work to be looked at and getting the balance right between the Board and the Committees. With new Board members now in place this is an opportunity to look at how the Board supports the ET as an advisory Board whilst providing assurance to SG and NH.
7.2 With clear accountabilities set out with Directors, there is scope for using the expertise of the Non-Executive Directors (NEDs) between Boards. Board are asked to discuss what does that mean for Committees and our overall governance.
7.3 TE suggested looking at the proposals in two parts. NEDs have been aligned with ET work, how does challenge and scrutiny take place with the Board members. DH was concerned that getting the right mix of people around the table was missing and asked how do we demonstrate compliance and scrutiny for the Committees.
7.4 TE said the NEDs are offering support in the preparation of strategically important papers and assurance. With each NED supporting a Strategic Plan priority the Board can take assurance that a NED has provided support and scrutiny. The Board agreed with the pairings set out at 3.1 of the paper. Pairings to be reviewed after one year.
7.5 SD and DH asked for standing People Committee and Customer Quality and Professional Standards Committee items be transferred to the relevant meetings to ensure these are not lost. SR confirmed this work has taken place and is with SR to review. In October, People Committee will be taking place with a specific deep dive on culture.
7.6 The Framework document should be checked as part of the Governance cycle. MHCLG representation at the Committees is also part of the assurance mechanism for the department. Think about how this can be maintained.
7.7 TE asked for the following to be considered:
- is the formal structure set out, of the Board and ARAC enough in the longer term, have we got it right;
- going forward, do we need another Committee to support the Board and alongside Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, if agreed another Committee is needed. Draft ToR and consider what would it be called, consider a more workshop style approach;
- have we captured the standing items from the People and Customer Quality and Professional Standards Committee;
- collaborative engagement with MHCLG colleagues through committees, how to maintain this;
- Frequency and length of Board meetings and when needed;
- Make time for NEDs and Board members to have engagement with teams, create a structure that helps that to happen.
Business Planning session in November would be the better place to think about how to take forward under which structures.
7.8 As this is the last meeting before Brexit, SG asked for a short meeting to be held in October to give the Board the opportunity to discuss any changes to risk analysis. NR confirmed the risks identified around Brexit have not changed since the last meeting.
Agreed:
7a) The Board agreed with the pairings set out at 3.1 of the paper.
7b) KT to review the Framework document to make sure changes to the committee structure are possible.
7c) KT to consider:
- is the formal structure set out, of the Board and ARAC enough in the longer term, have we got it right;
- going forward, do we need another Committee to support the Board and alongside Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, if agreed draft ToR and what would it be called, consider a more workshop style approach;
- have we captured the standing items from the People and Customer Quality and Professional Standards Committee;
- collaborative engagement with MHCLG colleagues through committees, how to maintain this;
- frequency and length of Board meetings and when needed;
- make time for NEDs and Board members to have engagement with teams, create a structure that helps that to happen.
7d) KT to include at the Business Planning session in November how to take forward Committee items and reporting.
8.0 Forward agenda
Agreed
8a) A short Board to be held to discuss Brexit and the strategic environment and to review Heathrow risk. People Committee will commence at 10.30am in October.
Next meeting: 24th October 14.00 – 15.30, Gromit 3rd Floor, Temple Quay House, Bristol