Compare determination times across authorities and development types
Partially satisfiedAs an analyst, I need to compare how long planning authorities take to determine applications across development types so that I can produce consistent performance reporting and identify patterns in delays and capacity.
- Priority
- high
- Status
- proposed
- Themes
- monitoring, performance
- Actors
- analyst, central-government-analyst
- Source
- ps1-ps2
- Variations
- need-ps-025, need-ps-030
Justification
Justification just-0058
The `valid-from` timeline event records when the authority treated an application as valid for statutory or process purposes. The `time-extension-agreed` event records when an extension of time was agreed, while `decision-date` records when the decision was made. Together with `application-types` and `development-scale`, these fields let users calculate elapsed determination times and compare them across broad application routes and major or minor development scale. This partially satisfies need-ps-025 because the model does not record the applicable determination deadline or a revised deadline agreed through an extension of time, Planning Performance Agreement or EIA timetable. Without that deadline, a service manager cannot determine from the data alone whether an application met the timetable that applied to it. It partially satisfies need-ps-026 because the model does not yet provide the full development-type reporting categories needed to monitor determination times across all PS1 and PS2 development types. It partially satisfies need-ps-030 for the same reason: without those reporting categories, a policy user cannot consistently identify whether delays or capacity challenges are concentrated in particular development types.
Satisfaction: partial; Confidence: medium
Satisfied by:
All of:
See complete justification record: just-0058
Justification just-0050
The `planning-performance-agreement` field records whether an application was subject to a Planning Performance Agreement for performance reporting purposes. This supports PS1 and PS2 reporting, which asks for counts of decisions where the application was subject to a Planning Performance Agreement. The specification normally avoids simple flag-style fields where a more meaningful event, document or relationship can be modelled. In this case, a narrow flag is justified because the only confirmed need is reporting the existence of a Planning Performance Agreement. Planning Performance Agreements are normally agreed before the application is submitted, do not have to be published and may not be available as public documents. There is not yet evidence for modelling the agreement, timetable, fee, publication status or lifecycle more broadly.
Satisfaction: partial; Confidence: medium
Satisfied by:
See complete justification record: just-0050