Board meeting minutes 31 January 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-31-january-2019-the-planning-inspectorate
Minutes FINAL 21 March 2019
| Title of meeting | Planning Inspectorate Board Meetings |
|---|---|
| Date | 21 March 2019 |
| Venue | Conference room 3, Rivergate, Bristol |
| Chair | Trudi Elliott (TE) |
| Present | Planning Inspectorate Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| David Holt (DH) | Non-Executive Director |
| Susan Johnson (SJ) | Non-Executive Director |
| Jayne Erskine (JE) | Non-Executive Director |
| Sarah Richards (SR) | Chief Executive |
| Navees Rahman (NR) | Director of Corporate Services |
| Rebecca Phillips (RP) | Group Manager |
| Simon Gallagher (SG) | Director of Planning, MHCLG |
| Natasha Perrett (NP) | Board Secretary |
| In attendance | Planning Inspectorate Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Tim Guy (TG) | Director, Transformation (items 4 & 5) |
| Christine Thorby (CT) | Group Manager (item 5) |
| Simone Wilding (SW) | Head of Major Casework Management (item 5) |
| Jo Esson (JEs) | Head of Governance and Strategic Support (items 8) |
| Tony Thickett (TT) | Director of Wales |
Part One: Schedule of Actions – 25 January 2018
Action: 15. Circulate draft targets submission to Board members for comment.
Owner: Sarah Richards
Para: 6.8
Timeframe: On hold pending SR19 submission
Part One: Schedule of Actions – 29 November 2018
Action: 1. Expand the September minutes to capture the debate on performance, Fujitsu contract and risk register.
Owner: Natasha Perrett & Trudi Elliott
Para: 2.2 - 2.5
Timeframe: In progress – advice requested from DH and SG.
Action: 2. Hold a session on risk matters with SLTs in quarter one next year.
Owner: David Holt & Navees Rahman
Para: 3.12
Timeframe: Confirm SLT meeting
Action: 4. Keep the NEDs updated on ITMP progress outside of Board.
Owner: Navees Rahman
Para: 3.29
Timeframe: On-going
Action: 9. Performance team to come back to the Board with the HoS lead to present MiPINS to the Board in March.
Owner: Tim Guy
Para: 4.19
Timeframe: Complete – item 5b on March agenda
Action: 10. Come back to the Board in March with a progress update on the proposals for an independent Inspectorate for Wales.
Owner: Neil Hemington
Para: 5.6
Timeframe: Transferred to May Board
Action: 11. Add a risk around the Inspectorate implementing policy and how this might impact on Ministers.
Owner: Tony Thickett
Para: 6.9
Timeframe: Being considered.
Action: 13. Draft a report of lessons learnt on GDPR near misses (reported to MHCLG but not to the ICO) to be submitted to the next CQPSC meeting.
Owner: Martin Long/Gina Warman
Para: 6.12
Timeframe: Complete – presented at February CQPSC.
Part One: Schedule of Actions – 31 January 2019
Action: 1. Review the diversity data for the latest inspector and APO recruitment round and feedback to the Board.
Owner: Tim Guy
Para: 5.5
Timeframe: End of February
Action: 2. Circulate the Inquiries Review report to the NEDs
Owner: Simon Gallagher
Para: 6.10
Timeframe: Complete – circulated in February.
Action: 3. Bring a formal paper on Brexit to the March Board, with a focus on people.
Owner: Navees Rahman
Para: 7.11
Timeframe: Complete – item 6 on March agenda
Action: 4. Provide a Brexit update to the NEDs in February.
Owner: Navees Rahman
Para: 7.11
Timeframe: Complete – update provided at February NED session.
Action: 5. Recommendations 1 and 2 – JEs 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: Jo Esson
Para: 8.1
Timeframe: TBC
Action: 6. Recommendations 3-14 - deliver these recommendations from the review.
Owner: Jo Esson/Natasha Perrett
Para: 8.1
Timeframe: In progress
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: Jo Esson
Para: 8.1
Timeframe: By April
Action: 8. Forward planner:
- February NED session - Brexit update
- March - New targets, NED only update on OD phase 2, including SG, Brexit
- April NED session - Board development, including newly appointed Directors (if possible).
- May - Dinner the night before May Board.
Owner: Natasha Perrett
Para: 3.2, 5.15, 9.1
Timeframe: Complete – forward planner updated
1.0 Welcome and Declaration of Interests
1.1 The Chair welcomed the Board, apologies were received from TT, RP was in attendance.
1.2 The Chair called for Declarations of Interest, of which there were none.
2.0 Minutes of 29 November Board meeting (part one)
2.1 No further comments received on the November Board minutes.
Agreed:
2a) The November minutes are an accurate record of the meeting.
3.0 People Committee update
3.1 The People Committee discussed:
- Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) and Gender Pay Gap (GPG) – further work on longer term targets needed to keep this work focused, making sure these are realistic. As well as protected characteristics, inclusion should cover professions. Katie Hartwright (KH) was asked to look at declaration rates as a priority.
- People plan – Culture is at the centre for the new organisation structure. The following are priorities – change to performance management reviews, inclusion and on-boarding new people. Make sure impact on IT kit has full affect and avoid a dip in engagement.
- Organisation Design (OD) progress update – it was agreed D&I and GPG need to be captured in this work.
3.2 March Board will receive an OD update, with a formal paper submitted to the April People Committee meeting.
Agreed:
3a) To note the update from the People Committee Chair.
3b) March Board will receive an OD update, with a formal paper submitted to the April People Committee meeting.
4.0 Monitoring performance a) December Dashboard
4.1 At the November Board a slight underspend on budget was reported. Work is being done to manage the year end position and the financial risk. There is still a risk to our income as changes happen to NI projects.
4.2 The ODT project has fallen behind and this will impact on funding as it will not be spent in this financial year. As there is a slippage in capital, to manage this risk to funding, we are looking at the Transformation Project to see what we might re-profile and bring forward. Regular conversations are taking place with SG to keep MHCLG up to date.
4.3 Slippage to the ODT project is due to external challenges. TE asked if the funding will be at risk in the next financial year. SG explained the strategy is to re-profile into next year. There is potential to move funding, but this cannot be relied on in the future.
4.4 The round of quarter 3 business area reviews have finished. Whilst underspends have been identified, we are looking at priorities and how we apply funding.
b) ITMP
4.5 Roll out of the new IT started on the 8th January, to date kit has been rolled out to 40% (270) people. Delivery is on target with the re-baselined delivery plan. By 14th February, kit will be rolled out to all but 15 people. The outstanding 15 are due to absence.
4.6 Whilst the roll out and training is going well, feedback on the whole has been positive, has highlighted the difference in IT literacy. Issues have been around share point, documents and logging on to business applications. More training will be provided on one-drive, share point, teams and chat, all of which are new tools. Workshops will be taking place at the inspector training event and we are looking at what/ how we provide support to those in the office.
4.7 SR explained we do not currently test IT literacy, but we need to do this for our workforce and make some decisions around fundamental skills needed in our organisation.
Agreed:
4a) To note December dashboard and ITMP updates.
5.0 Performance and Performance Recovery, including recruitment
5.1 MHCLG has approved funding for 2019/2020 which supports our inspector recruitment. Following the approval of funding, the project status remains at amber/ green.
5.2 Overall performance has stabilised to under 28 weeks. The number of cases in the system is at 9500 which is the highest it has been for a long time. Reductions will be seen in a couple of months as recruitments have an impact. The national list has decreased to 1600. The latest round of Non-Salaried Inspector (NSI) procurement has helped contribute to this.
5.3 Recruitment update:
- Appeal Planning Officer (APO) – 7 have accepted, 30 await results - applicants from LPAs and private sector.
- Band 1 Inspectors – 61 recruited – applicants from LPAs and private sector.
- Band 2 – awaiting full results, 29 successful so far with more expected – a number of these applicants were internal as well as external.
5.4 There is still a risk in to the number of band 1 inspector numbers due to band 2 successes, but not by a large number. A decision on a further band 1 recruitment will be made in February.
5.5 The Board were interested in the diversity of this round of recruitment. TG – has requested the data and agreed to look into this. RP has been involved in the recruitment process and felt there was a good mix of diversity and gender.
5.6 Whilst the NSI recruitment has been positive the amount of time committed has been less than expected.
5.7 The MIPINS project is behind due to ITMP rollout and resources, these are now in place and progress should be made.
5.8 To improve performance the ACS will be launched on Monday for inspectors.
5.9 The Board discussed event to decision times, TG explained performance varies across the sub-groups. As a Board, DH asked what are the key directional decisions to be made to help/ enhance the process, what is the risk appetite you are willing to take. TG explained the oversight board is the governance mechanism, which reviews outliers and this tells us strategically what needs to be addressed. It also focuses on value for money and maintaining a flexible workforce.
5.10 Considering stakeholder feedback, TE said we need to be clear with our stakeholders, acknowledge our performance is still an issue and explain what we are doing to address it. There has also been some feedback around Local Plan performance.
5.11 SR explained calls to our customer services team about performance have dropped over the last 2-3 months. On local plans, we know this is an area of priority and we are looking at our inspector resource to deal with these and resource the local plan examinations. RP explained we will be addressing through the band 2 recruitment and training.
5.12 Data was discussed, SG highlighted the importance of improving our data, so we can understand our performance improvements and where the priority areas are. This will be even more important as we drive delivery. Local Plan issues are also important; we need to understand what is happening.
5.13 To further address the issues around data, changes made through the OD work will introduce best practice and senior leadership for the team.
5.14 The Board asked ET to make sure sufficient support is going into those at the frontline of work whilst we get OD in place, on-board new people and to consider how we might use new resource to do things differently.
5.15 A review of targets is taking place and will come to the next Board. At the last Accounting Officer meeting, SG and SR were asked to put a proposition on new targets to MHCLG.
5.16 The highest resourcing risk we have is around NSIP requirements and there is work to be done around this. To define requirements. SG offered to take forward a conversation with colleagues about demand management.
Agreed:
5a) TG to review the diversity data for the latest inspector and APO recruitment round and feedback to the Board.
5b) NP to add new targets to the March Board agenda. ***## 6.0 Inquiries Review Implementation plan 6.1 The aim of the inquiries review is to half the amount of time taken for inquiry cases which currently stands at 44 weeks. A series of recommendations have been made to help achieve this.
6.2 Targets are set at 90% of cases to be decided in 24 weeks, the remaining 10% to be decided in 26 weeks. For Secretary of State cases 100% to be decided in 30 weeks.
6.3 As lead, Bridget Rosewell made a call for evidence which included stakeholder events with local residents, Planning Authorities, agents and developers and inspectors. There was also an expert panel to advise Bridget. MHCLG and the Inspectorate analysed and published statistics. The Inspectorate undertook a deep dive review of inquiries’ files over the last 2 years.
6.4 There are three areas of improvement which are earlier engagement, timescales and technical changes to improve efficiency. Three aims are to achieve timeliness, have an action plan in place by April 2019 and improve the portal which is part of ODT as a key enabler to improve efficiency.
6.5 The transition to the new process will be a challenge: getting the discipline in place and starting the event in week 14, these are the biggest culture changes. The review has set a clear mandate for the inspector in the new process to support the improvements.
6.6 The report is currently with the Minister, publishing is imminent. A pilot will be starting in February to test a large number of the recommendations.
6.7 TE asked if the changes could adversely impact performance on other areas. CT explained this is being monitored through the Performance Recovery Board (PRB). SW said the principles could be applied wider and benefit other casework areas.
6.8 Communication has already begun with stakeholders and some parties have been asked to take part in the pilot. Everyone contacted has been very positive about it. Inspectors have been identified and are looking at the guidance. This will also help to shape communication and templates.
6.9 TG acknowledged the potential impact on hearing cases. CT explained early working and direction can apply to all casework. We are reviewing how to move forward to hearings.
6.10 The NEDs asked SG if they could see the report. SG will look into circulating to the NEDs.
6.11 The Board extended congratulates to Bridget Rosewell on the award of an CBE.
Agreed:
6a) SG to circulate the Inquiries Review report to the NEDs. *** ## 7.0 Mitigates and target risks 7.1 ET have considered strategic risk S1 – lack of capacity and capability, and strategic risk S2 – horizon scanning and resource planning and how to address the gap between the post mitigations and target scores.
7.2 DH asked, as a Board are we clear on the timescale and period of time for the mitigations to get us to the risk appetite. SJ said the Board needs assurance around strategic workforce planning with everything that is taking place in the organisation. JE felt retaining existing staff and work around retention should be included in S1, workforce planning will get us to the lower level of the risk.
7.3 SR explained strategic workforce planning continues as we gather views of the market and future needs. The element of strategic workforce planning not currently being pursued is around software.
7.4 It was agreed we are accepting less than green on this risk and we recognise we are carrying this risk. SR confirmed the appetite for this risk is hungry and will remain a risk for this organisation. The OD work will help to address the capability issues.
7.5 The proximity for risk s1 is over the next 6 months whilst we implement phase one of OD and have appointed to the grade 6 and grade 7 roles. SR highlighted this risk is about our skill shortage and capacity in our current senior structure not about inspector resourcing.
7.6 If business as usual is not achieved in the timescale proposed, SG asked have we got enough resilience and capacity to deal with things not going to plan. NR said Brexit and the Inquiry Review recommendations need to be reflected in the risk and this will increase the target risk band.
7.7 SR assured the Board change load is reviewed monthly by the ET. SG suggested SR continue to this risk raise at Accounting Officer meetings.
Brexit update
7.8 SG gave an update on Brexit activity at MHCLG.
7.9 ET are looking at the challenges, business continuity planning, strategic risks for longer term impact of Brexit on the Inspectorate and how we plan and anticipate that. SG is our sponsor for all things Brexit.
7.10 NR is leading the Brexit Contingency Planning project. The four key areas identified by the project are data, goods and services, people and operations. Work is underway to plan what we do now to the 29th March to prepare for no deal. This includes understanding where things are hosted, impact on contracts and writing to suppliers. A Brexit business continuity plan will be drafted with a view of what we do on the 29th March, 1 week after, 1 month after and 3 months after.
7.11 TE asked for formal paper on Brexit to come to the March Board, with a focus on people. A Brexit update should be given to the NEDs in February.
Agreed:
7a) NR to bring a formal paper on Brexit to the March Board, with a focus on people.
7b) NR to provide a Brexit update to the NEDs in February. *** ## 8.0 Board effectiveness review 8.1 TE thanked the team for their work. The Board discussed the priority of the recommendations and timings. The following was agreed:
- Recommendations 1 and 2 – JEs 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.
- Recommendations 3-14 - deliver these recommendations from the review.
- JEs to 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.
8.2 TE thanked JEs, NP and SG for their support with the NED recruitment and SJ and JE for agreeing to extend contracts until the new appointments are made.
Agreed:
8a) Recommendations 1 and 2 – JEs 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.
8b) Recommendations 3-14 - deliver these recommendations from the review.
8c) JEs to 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. ***
9.0 Forward planner
9.1 The Board agreed the following items for the Board forward planner:
February NED session - Brexit update
March - New targets, NED only update on OD phase 2, including SG, Brexit
April NED session - Board development, including newly appointed Directors (if possible).
May - Dinner the night before May Board.
Agreed:
9a) The additions to the forward planner.