Events

Idox hosted two interactive workshop sessions with a mix of LPAs, including both existing Idox customers and non-customers. The purpose of the exercise was to understand LPAs' priorities for future investment in digital planning. Participants were given a notional £100 to invest across five priority areas:

• Planning data, APIs and interoperability
• Performance, capacity and insight
• AI-assisted validation and workflow
• Citizen engagement
• Cross-authority working / Local Government Reorganisation (LGR)

Headline Findings

Both groups reached very similar conclusions. Planning data, APIs and interoperability emerged as the clear priority, receiving approximately twice as much investment as the next highest-ranked themes.

Performance, capacity and insight and AI-assisted validation and workflow were joint second priorities, reflecting a strong appetite for improving efficiency, visibility and operational effectiveness within planning services.

Citizen engagement received the lowest level of investment across both groups. Participants noted that this may partly reflect the fact that citizen engagement is not a core use case for Idox systems and that there is little we can do to influence consultation due to statutory requirements.

Key Themes

1. Data, APIs and interoperability remain the highest priority

Participants unanimously agreed that improving data quality, system integration and interoperability should be the sector's primary focus. As there was broad consensus on its importance, the conversation was focussed on other areas.

2. LPAs struggle to access meaningful performance insights

Participants consistently reported difficulties extracting useful management information from current solutions. There was a strong desire for more intuitive dashboards and reporting tools that provide visibility of workload, performance and operational priorities. Officers using Uniform's time-recording functionality highlighted it as a valuable source of insight where available.

3. Validation is a significant operational pain point

Validation was repeatedly identified as a challenge. Participants reported that invalid applications often progress too far through the process before issues are identified, creating inefficiencies later in the workflow. Examples included incorrect application details and inaccurate fee exemption claims that officers regularly have to detect and resolve manually.

Takeaway

The workshops highlighted a strong consensus that investment should focus first on data, APIs and interoperability, alongside better operational insight and AI-supported validation to reduce inefficiencies in planning workflows. This is aligned with the vision of the Digital Planning Programme and the planning software strategy presented by MHCLG at ODP Camp.

Purpose 

IEG hosted an interactive session to gather feedback on its ground-up redevelopment of APAS, its planning back-office system. The aim was to understand how different planning professionals use the system, what information they prioritise and how the new platform could better support day-to-day workflows. 

Who attended 

• IEG / Agile: Product, design and planning software representatives presenting the redevelopment. 
• Local planning authorities: Planning practitioners, including representatives from Redbridge, covering technical validation, case management and other planning functions. 
• Wider ODP community: Participants with experience of other back-office systems, including Idox Uniform. 

Key takeaways 

1. Major APAS redevelopment: IEG is rebuilding APAS to address legacy technology, improve usability, accessibility and responsiveness, and introduce a consistent interface across its products. 

2. User-led design: Strong emphasis on understanding what different users need to see first, rather than simply recreating existing screens. Configurable dashboards, better search and clearer presentation of key dates were discussed. 

3. Operational priorities: LPAs highlighted validation queues, caseload management, allocation, deadlines and reporting as critical areas for improvement. 

4. Data and integration challenges: Discussion highlighted difficulties around development monitoring, housing data, building control integration and the reliability of reporting. These remain important areas to resolve. 

5. Delivery and engagement: IEG is targeting April 2027 for development of the English planning module. An online prototype will allow wider practitioner feedback. Migration and workflow automation still require clarification. 

The session demonstrated a supplier actively redesigning its back-office system with practitioner involvement, creating a potential opportunity to influence how emerging planning data standards are implemented.

Purpose of Breakout Sessions was to: 

• Validate how a lack of digital skills within an organisation is affecting the completion of key planning tasks 
• Understand more about where LPA officers access training which will inform intervention design. 

Attendees: 9 participants across both sessions including those who were planners in policy or development management teams, and those in business support roles across mixed seniority levels. 

Key themes: 

• Lack of foundational digital skills remain a key barrier: challenges with using basic MS office tools, effective AI chatbot prompting, using CRM systems, and awareness of digital ways of working.  This was identified as a ‘quicker win’ if these basic skills could be boosted. 
• Organisational culture and appetite for digital transformation is critical: collaboration across IT, GIS, business improvement, and planning functions was reported as vital in embedding digital approaches, and senior leaders need support/guidance so they ‘buy-in’ to digital transformation. 
• Training needs to be more engaging and underpinned by senior endorsement: LPAs reported that there were available online courses, but it wasn’t always clear which courses were relevant, that online learning can more-easily be de-prioritised than in person events, and that officers need senior buy-in to have confidence and the time to attend. 
• Metaphor summarising the challenge: Planning teams have a forest to chop down but are armed with a blunt axe and have no time to sharpen it.  
• GIS skills & capability reported as underutilised: inconsistency in how GIS skillsets were used because those skillsets sometimes sit within planning teams or within central functions and planners may not know when they need GIS support and what those officers can do.  

Key Digital Planning Skills Gaps 

• Participants consistently reported difficulties with digital citizen engagement, geospatial analysis, managing data, using/managing digital services, and procuring new digital tools- all underpinned by a high need for better foundational digital skills.  

Accessing training & support 

• Participants reported a need for more role-specific guidance/advice on how AI can be safely/efficiently used across planning processes, using GIS, and upskilling on back-office systems- with LGR and associated software changes making this more important now. 
• Participants typically accessed training online (although they’d often prefer to do so in person) and used resources like PAS, RTPI, ODP, software suppliers, or MHCLG guidance.  

Planners worked in groups to discuss the skills they expect to need in the future. 

Each individual was tasked with writing three skills need for the planning professional of 2035. Participants were then put in pairs to jointly prioritise two of their combined six skills. Participants were then asked to become a group of 4 or 5 and asked to categorise both the prioritised skills and the remain skills into ‘existing’ or ‘new’, or a combination of existing and new.

The workshops suggest that participants do not see the planner of 2035 as a completely different profession. Instead, they envisage a planner who combines traditional planning competencies with much stronger digital, data and AI capability.

The strongest message is that AI, GIS and broader digital literacy are becoming core professional skills rather than specialist capabilities. At the same time, participants repeatedly emphasised that human skills such as communication, negotiation, integrity, judgement, critical thinking and adaptability will become more important, not less.  

One of the breakout sessions at the recent ODP event was a workshop on ‘Modern Digital Planning Software’. Because we’re all familiar with the vision of “bringing the planning system to the 21st century” but how exactly does that vision turn into reality in software used in Planning? 

So we gathered what we’ve heard engaging with LPAs over the years and put together a set of principles. A ‘definition’ of what good looks like. We’ve also collaborated with colleagues in GDS Local and software suppliers who operate in planning for early visibility of what’s coming. 

The interactive activity in Liverpool was a unique opportunity for many LPAs to check out the latest draft. 

More than 40 participants were asked to look at section headings (only) and jot down software-related unmet needs in the work they do which they would hope to see addressed. Discussing in small groups, they then shared their reality with colleagues from different LPAs and started to become familiar with headings such as ‘data ownership’ and ‘transparent contracts’. 

The next step was to reveal the content under each heading and see which problem areas had been taken into account. Walking around the room, it was satisfying to see so many points ticked off the A3-size printouts available, a sign that there is strong alignment between what’s expected and what’s already mentioned in the latest draft. 

A few common topics came up several times. The need to easily report on data, whether with in-built tools or connecting to a 3rd party. The expectation to support entire planning workflows, removing the need to copy and paste from one system to another. But the heading that attracted most comments? ‘Focussed on user needs’ with many calls for more user-centric design, closing training gaps and greater flexibility. 

But the real pub test - as we wrapped up, we asked everyone to fill out a survey for a pulse check on whether this definition of Modern Digital Planning Software would be useful in its current format. From those who responded: 

• 42% said this would be extremely useful, no changes needed 
• 50% said this would be mostly useful, some minor tweaks are preferred 

We’ll continue to iterate on the content, but it’s great to see most feel that version 1 would already be useful in supplier discussions and pre-market engagement. Do you have an opportunity to bring up the principles of Modern Digital Planning Software with suppliers? Would you like to check these out for yourself, whether you were at the workshop or not? Get in touch [insert appropriate link for Call to Action] 

Thanks to everyone who participated in what turned out to be a very popular workshop! 

Thanks to everyone who joined the session in Liverpool last week, we had a great turnout and a really valuable discussion. Your contributions and feedback have given us plenty to think about as we continue to iterate the blueprint and shape where we go next.

It was clear there’s strong interest from councils in using this work to build clarity and shared understanding across the current process, and to build on work already underway in early adopter areas such as City of London, Newcastle and others.

Key themes from discussion

• Clarity and guidance still developing: uncertainty around timetable requirements and gaps in supporting guidance (SEA / SoC / SoS)
• Applying the 30-month timeline in practice: some activities, like procurement and evidence gathering, may need more time within early stages
• Sequencing vs real-world delivery: LPAs often need to start building the evidence base earlier than shown in the blueprint
• Evidence base complexity: commissioning, baselining and scoping require significant lead-in time
• Governance as a key delivery factor: committee cycles, approvals, and external factors (pre-election periods) influence pace
• Procurement as a dependency: platform and evidence procurement can shape when work can realistically begin
• Readiness and gating: need for clearer expectations around Gateway 1 and what happens if LPAs aren’t ready
• Consultation: broad scoping approaches could drive high response volumes

• Where we can improve the blueprint: making governance more visible and bringing forward evidence work

  
  What happens next

• We’re already making practical updates to the blueprint to better reflect governance constraints and where activity happens in parallel or out of sequence in practice.
• All feedback from the session has been shared with colleagues across MHCLG and PINS to help inform wider thinking.
• We’re also setting up a Slack channel to share more detailed feedback and ongoing iterations, I’ll share details early next week. It would be great if those who attended last week could join, or share the invite with colleagues across your organisations.

We’ll continue to iterate this service blueprint openly, so please do get involved, share further reflections, and help shape how this develops.
 

Workshop outline

Collaborative session exploring how we use data to design improved building control services. The first part of the workshop looked at the participants' understanding of data and data standards, the second part explored designing a high level ‘data-not-documents’ service.  In true agile fashion - the session evolved with participants and concluded with a highly engaging discussion on the potential for a shared, on stop service between Building Control & Planning

Workshop outcomes

• Participants discussed various data and data schema perspectives, highlighting complex challenges such as address vs. UPRN vs. Geospatial information for both planning and building control
• In the service design, the opportunity to connect planning and building control services was highlighted, however participants suggested that the data linkage would be minimal but could be advertised to residents as a joined up service.
• Key customer needs about staying updated during the process highlighted the need to collect contact details for all stakeholders in the building control process to enable the Local Authority to ensure progress is communicated and legal liabilities are clear
• A lively discussion that clearly resonated with our small but perfectly formed group closed the session, focusing on the disconnect between planning and building control. Participants highlighted conflicts, delays and rework caused by siloed processes, and explored the potential for a “one-stop-shop” approach that improves coordination and creates a more seamless customer experience - whilst recognizing this would still require two separate legal decisions and formal notices, but could collect shared data once and simplify the journey for applicants.

This session introduced FME as a visual data integration tool, highlighting common use cases and planning‑specific examples from Coventry and Newcastle. Speakers demonstrated how FME can connect datasets to create map layers such as Hot Food Takeaways and Major Planning Applications, before closing with a short interactive exercise exploring core FME concepts.

This session introduced PropTech and its role in supporting planning through digital tools. Speakers outlined the Innovation Fund and its focus areas, before launching Round 6 with two new challenges on Section 106 and plan‑making evidence and policy alignment. The session closed with an invitation for LPAs to join consortia and apply for funding.

In an ideal world, what would LPAs (and users of their data) want to see in Site Allocation data? What would make it as useful as possible whilst not placing too high a burden upon those who have to produce the data? 

We undertook a couple of exercises to draw out LPA insights into what they would expect and want to see in a future Site Allocation data standard. Participants initially worked alone, then in pairs, then as part of a larger group in order to produce a number of suggestions on PostIt notes (of course). 

After the exercise these were digitised, arranged into themes and can be seen here.

For the majority of participants, and all of those with direct knowledge of the allocations process, there was no dissent regarding a) the value of standards around allocations and b) the importance of allocations to the local plan process. 

 There was a lot of consensus in certain areas, such as requiring the type and size of the allocation to be accurately recorded. Participants were split on the amount of background information that should be included, such as the reasoning behind the site’s inclusion as an allocation in the first place. Some were of the view that this information should already exist and be linked to, and others were keen to have as much data as possible to hand immediately. As a general rule, when creating data standards we try and keep the requirements as lean as possible, and structure the data in a way that allows it to be linked to existing records, rather than replicating them. 

The workshop made a valuable contribution to the overall discussion, which we are continuing to work on with a view to finalising a standard in the near future. 

Prototype site submission form breakout session

Thank you very much to those who gave feedback over the course of these two sessions. The main takeaways were:

1. The average member of the public may need very different language, and more help text, to understand what is being asked of them when completing a form such as this. Off the back of this action we will be prioritising testing with citizens in the New Year.
2. Some of the questions and options are unnecessarily fine grained and could be simplified.
3. Being able to start from a map, and that map be easier to zoom in and out, would be better than first suggesting a post code. 

These are just some short examples, but they show the clear direction of travel that the Local Plans team need to take the prototype in, and we are grateful to the ODP Community giving us a chance to learn. 

The ‘Pimp Your Design Process’ was a challenge to the attendees to write down and formalise the stages of their internal design process to make it ‘a thing’. Then use that thing to:

• lead future service owners through the process. These may be Officers that have shared a pain-point that needs fixing who don’t yet realised that they are going to be taken on a journey that may transform them from a Planners to Digital Planners and service owners
• define your ‘new service pipeline’
• define the role for the person responsible for the design process and pipeline – this can be someone new to you team, someone who doesn’t come from a planning or technical background
• ensure that you don’t miss stages. Particularly avoid going straight to ‘Digital Design’.

Digital Planning & Innovation – Service Design Process

A structured approach for developing new digital services that ensures user‑centred design, measurable outcomes, clear ownership, and resilient delivery as part of business‑as‑usual.

Plot User Journey

Understand the service from the perspective of real, named personas. Map the full journey and incorporate any relevant research about service users.

User Stories Plus

Use the five‑column user‑story spreadsheet to explore needs from all viewpoints, including citizens, officers, call‑centre staff, and management.

Metrics Design

Review each user story against the process map to determine how success will be measured and what data is required.

Digital Design

The DP&I team designs and builds the digital product—this may include online forms, dashboards, workflows, or other digital components.

Content Design

Service and web teams refine form content and web pages using analytics, content‑design principles, and best‑practice guidance.

User Testing & User Acceptance Testing

Testing is led by the service owner, with optional support from Residence Experience. Insights may lead to further design iterations. Formal sign‑off is required for UAT.

Go Live

Launch the service, update the website, and communicate changes appropriately. Decide whether a soft or hard launch is most suitable.

Assess Benefits Realisation

Once sufficient data has been collected, develop a user‑story‑based dashboard that clearly communicates performance and outcomes.

Feedback from Digital Planning Breakout Sessions

The two breakout sessions provided an opportunity to share progress on digital planning project and to discuss the role and potential impact to GM and wider. Engagement was positive and some clear themes emerged.

Engagement Summary

The sessions covered:

• An overview of the GLA Planning Data Hub, illustrating how London has structured and scaled its planning data infrastructure
• A walkthrough of what our discovery involves
• A brief comparison of governance in London and Greater Manchester
• A discussion of why Greater Manchester is pursuing this work, particularly the benefits of shared, standardised data flows
• A look at the provisional user cases, helping LPAs visualise how the hub could support their needs

Key Feedback Themes

1. Value in a GM Planning Data Hub

Across both sessions, participants recognised benefits in having a shared, consistent, GM wide home of planning data.

2. Surprise and interest in Greater Manchester’s frequent SHLAA updates

Several LPAs expressed genuine surprise that we collate a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) annually, which will be useful as a starting point for the planning data hub.
This led to useful discussion about:

• How this differs from the five year land supply
• How a regular SHLAA place GM in a strong position to transition to real‑time or near‑real‑time data models

3. Discussion on integration with existing GM tools

Discussed how the Planning Data Hub could sit alongside, and enhance, GM’s current tools, particularly the Integrated Pipeline.
The sessions helped LPAs understand that the hub would not replace existing systems, but be a dataset on multiple tools and analyses can be built from it

4. Ongoing engagement

Following the sessions, some LPAs reached out directly for more information, asking how they can stay involved and how the work may affect their local processes if it was something they could develop.

GMCA/GLA are also going to work with the ODP comms team to develop of blog on the project when the time is right.
We feel the engagement showed:

• Strong interest in a potential roll out of methodology
• Willingness to collaborate as the Discovery and future phases progress

Overall Summary

Hopefully, the breakout sessions improved understanding of digital planning ambitions across GM and generated support for continued development the Planning Data Hub.

LPAs shared the value and were engaged in the technical and governance discussion.

What LPAs are doing:

Cambridgeshire

• Developed an AI summariser for planning comments using PropTech funding.
• Currently piloting the tool through a consultation platform provider.
• Running experiments with Copilot and exploring an AI agent built around a defined model.
• Held two public focus groups; produced FAQs for transparency and launched an instant‑summary feature.
• Phase 2 (with Liverpool University): Allows users to generate an AI summary or submit text manually.
• Built automation to avoid officers having to copy/paste between systems.
• Generating two report types: an executive summary and a detailed summary.
• Completed DPIA, updated privacy notices, and planning to procure below threshold.

Doncaster

• Using FME to extract and standardise data.
• Leveraging PlanX to structure responses, which can then be summarised with AI (A10 model).
• Also testing AI at the front end to help generate public summaries for applications before they enter the back‑office system.

PlanX

• Using AI trained on ~30,000 corrected project descriptions to help applicants write clearer proposals.
• Provides side‑by‑side comparisons so applicants can accept, edit, or reject suggestions.
• LPAs can choose whether to enable this feature and can tailor models to reflect local or organisational expectations.

Dorset

• Corporate AI governance and ethics policy in place.
• Using agents to summarise consultations for policy teams via Copilot.
• Ready for launch but paused due to member‑level risk concerns—despite legal and GDPR approval.
• Designed multiple agents for specific policy tasks with an orchestrator agent managing workflow.

South Gloucestershire

• Corporate AI policy in place following Copilot rollout.

Cross‑Cutting Issues & Sector Questions

Risk, Transparency & Trust

• LPAs are cautious about reliance on AI for material planning tasks.
• Key questions raised:
  • How comfortable are developers with the public reading an AI‑generated summary?
  • Would AI‑generated content hold up during FOI requests, appeals, or challenges?
  • Will PINS’ current AI policy give confidence, or is new case law needed?
• Shared view: many LPAs may wait for a sector‑wide legal precedent before adopting AI more fully.

Data Protection & Record Keeping

• Debate on whether AI outputs constitute a “second record”.
• GDPR questions continue, though many authorities’ legal teams are satisfied with current approaches.

Service Design & Governance

• Emerging practices include:
  • Creating purpose‑specific AI agents.
  • Using an orchestrator agent to coordinate tasks.
  • Establishing internal AI working groups.
  • Providing AI training for senior stakeholders.
  • Embedding risk management into the design of AI services.

Key Outcomes

• Growing experimentation across LPAs with AI summarisation, automation, and front‑end application assistance.
• Strong emphasis on governance, including DPIAs, privacy updates, transparency measures, and corporate AI policies.
• Sector‑wide caution due to reputational and legal risks, especially relating to appeals and FOIs.
• Emerging best practices around agentic AI design, organisational controls, and user‑involved testing (e.g., focus groups).
• Need for shared learning, particularly around risk management, legal precedent, and operational models for safe AI use in planning.

• We welcomed a range of attendees - 4.1 cohort, other DPIF cohorts that had not been able to attend welcome events, and other interested attendees on the day (such as PAS colleagues)
• We covered a background to how ODP started and grew
• We outlined what matters in ODP and how to have influence - focusing on range of experience and passion/engagement over seniority and job titles
• We encouraged making the most of ODP opportunities - learning, collaborating with other LPAs etc
• We had a brief discussion on how new folks are settling in and answered some questions (such as how to find out more about ODP products)

Challenge question: "How could LPAs improve digital planning services with £10k-20k?"

Some considerations:

• Looking for opportunities to address knowledge, configuration or product gaps
• Well-defined problems where funding appears to be the only missing ingredient
• 'Quiet Achievers' requiring minimal MHCLG resourcing

Highlights - key responses shared by participants:

• Health Check run by existing supplier brings a lot more expertise than in-house. This can be a useful starting point to identify priority areas to improve and requires funding.
• Many examples around training needs. Surprisingly most participants (80%) mentioned GIS training. Other training opportunities mentioned were around using existing tools to maximum benefit, e.g. 3D modelling, report writing, Power Automate / Power BI, FME data extraction and manipulation
• When discussing upgrades / changing systems, one participant mentioned they would use the funding to close down a GIS system. A new one had been adopted but data from the previous one hadn't been cleansed and migrated.
• Some discussion among participants suggests funding could help get data ready for Extract. Digitising existing paper records or microfiche was mentioned as something that doesn't get prioritised from a funding perspective.
• One participant expressed a desire to use the funding to try out a tool that could help them prepare a Local Plan that is more digital, e.g. public-facing mapping software
• One participant expressed a desire to automate the enforcement of Tree Protection Orders

Other ideas contributed in interactive board but not discussed due to time constraints:

• Cross platform integrations
• Reconfiguration of GIS system to ensure cyber security
• Concentrated OS data improvement sprints
• Decision Notice data extraction
• LPG improvement to inform monitoring and evidence processes
• Replicate Greater Cambridge S106 project for a live feed of information using Exacom

Purpose: To explore what it would take to standardise decision-stage data in the planning permission process - building on the earlier work that standardised the submission stage of planning applications.

Context:

• The MHCLG Data Design Team have already defined the data standard for application submissions (based on existing national forms).
• They’re now moving into the more complex decision part of the process, where every LPA works differently and there is no common format.
• The session was used to test early thinking, surface barriers, and hear directly from planners about what data actually matters in decisions.

Core questions asked:

1. What are the biggest challenges to standardising decision-stage data?
2. What information within decisions should be consistently captured and reported on?

Main takeaways:

• Widespread variation in local decision processes and templates.
• Cultural and political factors drive inconsistency (local practices, councillor involvement, legal review).
• Agreement that three core data points underpin all decisions:
  1. Outcome – approved/refused.
  2. Reason – conditions or refusal grounds.
  3. Next steps – appeal rights or follow-on actions.
• Additional context such as what was actually approved, site history, or negotiated changes (e.g., affordable housing % increase) should be captured where possible.
• Some suggested using this as the “decision core schema,” with flexibility for local add-ons.
• Legacy data and multiple systems create fragmentation.
• Standardisation should focus on future processes, not retrofitting historic decisions.
• Recognition that planning remains a judgement-based system. Standardising how data is presented and recorded is possible; standardising how human judgement is applied is not.
• Agreement that a good standard should support transparent decision-making without constraining professional discretion.

To explore how the developing national planning data standards can better connect across the full planning workflow from application submission through to decision, reporting, and publication and to identify where data inconsistencies, legacy systems, and governance gaps currently sit.

Core questions asked:

What information do you want to report on that isn’t currently captured through the application form?

What do you see as the biggest challenges in achieving a consistent, data-rich planning process?

How can standards be introduced without disrupting local delivery or existing system integrations?

Main Themes and Discussion Points

a. Clarity and Governance

Strong agreement that standards need clear version control and a predictable update cycle.

Comment that suppliers would find it hard to build or maintain integrations if schemas shift without notice.

b. Linking the End-to-End Process

Broad support for linking submission, decision, and monitoring data so that reporting on outcomes (e.g., completions, delivery rates) becomes easier and more transparent.

Highlighted the absence of feedback loops from building control completions back into planning data as a major gap.

c. Legacy and Free-Text Data

Mapping free-text fields (for example, tree data, planning conditions, and environmental details) into structured formats remains a major challenge.

Agreed that backward compatibility should be pragmatic: focus on consistent, structured capture going forward while documenting historical inconsistencies.

d. Integration and Interoperability

Councils and suppliers want more reliable interaction between planning data and related systems, including finance, GIS, building control, and public registers.

Suggested that future pilots could explicitly test interoperability across these systems to expose technical dependencies early.

e. Culture and Change Management

Noted that decision-making practices are shaped by local culture, politics, and legal interpretation.

National standards should therefore define a minimum viable model and allow for local extensions where necessary.

Benefits & Challenges

Improved Application Quality: Pre-apps generally lead to better follow-up applications with fewer invalid or refused submissions. Data Gaps: Few councils have data to prove this improvement. Ignored Advice: Some applicants proceed without addressing pre-app feedback.

Costs & Fees

Unclear Cost Recovery: Only one council tracks officer time, so it's unclear if fees cover service costs. Resistance to Time Tracking: Planners are reluctant to log time in detail. Fee Structures: Often based on what other councils charge, with some reviewing pricing models. Complex Pricing: Difficult for inexperienced applicants to understand.

Process & Engagement

Flexibility Needed: Engagement levels vary, so systems should allow easy addition of extras. Consistency Issues: Lack of standardisation across councils frustrates agents working across LPAs. Balance Required: A structured yet flexible approach is key to improving service value.

Submission & Advice Quality

Submission Variability: Quality depends on the amount of data provided by applicants. Mandated Info Varies: Requirements range from minimal (site plan + description) to more detailed. Advice Quality Varies: Influenced by planner workload and individual approaches. Value Concerns: Service quality often doesn’t justify the cost for applicants.

Tools & Systems

Traffic Light System: Adopted by several councils and well-received. System Limitations: Existing tools are often unwieldy; workarounds are common. Need for Better Tools: Especially for managing Planning Performance Agreements.

Where are we now?

• Briefing portfolio holders
• Showcasing beneficial impacts
• Building confidence in the projects

What are the challenges?

• Time
• Cultural shift - digital change isn't part of the job description
• Needs to be top-down approach to transformation
• No mechanism of sharing learning across other teams in Councils
• LGR
• Too many people want to get involved

What ideas do you have?

• Digital Strategy reinforces a planned change to the service rather than a 'project' with a set end date
• Does the DPMA consider whether a Council works service transformation into the normal process?

How should we take action?

• Communicating
• Involve teams in workshops
• Signpost to evidence of improvements

• This session was used to inform the existing work carried out on the Definition of Modern Planning Service
• Specifically, the session looked at:
  • How can we maximise the value of this definition for LPAs?
  • Prescriptive Vs flexible guidance- getting the balance right.
  • Making this real; piloting and refining
• Key points:
  • LPAs welcome a more prescriptive approach and thought many items on the list should be mandatory
  • Often disagreement on priority but only as many felt all categories were important and could not be excluded
  • Some of these categories could easily be combined
  • Quite a few specific requests / pain points were mentioned concerning incumbent suppliers and individual not sure if their desired level of ‘mandatory’ would be practical
  • The more supporting docs the better – procuring software doesn’t happen regularly and experience is varied
  • MHCLG support will help LPAs be firmer with suppliers
  • There are opportunities for sharing experience here but not necessarily any forum to actually share it
  • There used to be a more prescriptive points based approach to this sort of procurement in the past (a few seasoned attendees mentioned this)
  • Templates & resources for non-procurement people
  • Guidance for procurement teams specific to planning software
  • Gap in knowledge in LPAs regarding procurement rules and where there’s opportunities to flex and where there are ridged rules
  • There are challenges around procuring software from overseas and the associate liabilities and the implications of this for teams

Awareness & Understanding

• LPAs often lack awareness of available PropTech solutions.
• Even when aware, they struggle to understand the full value proposition and ROI.
• Visibility of successful use cases from other LPAs is crucial.

Procurement & Funding Challenges

• Procurement processes are complex and often favour cost over quality.
• Procurement teams lack PropTech-specific knowledge.
• Business case development is a major barrier due to limited experience.
• Funding is scarce, non-dedicated, and often insufficient.
• Timing of procurement is sensitive to political cycles and planning stages.

Implementation & Integration

• Tools must be interoperable with legacy systems.
• LPAs need to ensure internal skills and capacity to use tools effectively.
• Siloed teams and lack of cross-team visibility hinder adoption.
• GIS and technical skills are often located in IT, not planning teams.

Trust & Market Regulation

• LPAs are wary of suppliers due to past negative experiences.
• Concerns about pricing changes post-implementation.
• Desire for government regulation to ensure fair market practices.
• Need for clear data standards and transparency in data methodologies.

Culture & Capacity

• Change is perceived as risky—a “leap of faith.”
• Teams are stretched thin; time to research, learn, and implement is limited.
• Reliance on basic tools like spreadsheets is still common.
• Lack of senior leadership understanding and buy-in slows progress.

Recommendations & Needs

• Floating procurement specialists could support LPAs.
• Short-term, project-based licensing models could be more effective.
• National APIs and frameworks could ease integration and procurement.
• Training for senior staff and councillors is needed to drive change.
• More collaboration and knowledge sharing between LPAs would help.

Context

• The City of London Corporation is leading an MHCLG-funded strategic project to explore and prototype what a Digital Local Plan could be.
• Discovery sessions are being held to identify pain points in current Local Plan processes and assess how digital solutions might help.

Key Findings

Pain Points

• PDF is not the main issue: 64% of participants felt the bigger pain lies in the broader plan-making process, not just the PDF format.
• Accessibility of the PDF remains a concern, but deeper issues exist around how plans are created, used, and understood.

Challenges to Digitisation

• Resourcing for digital transformation is limited.
• Version control is critical if moving to digital formats (e.g. HTML).
• Evidence base and policies map are integral parts of the plan and must be considered in digitisation.
• Monitoring links (e.g. with AMR) need to be built into digital plans.
• Consultant practices are slow to change, even when briefs request more data-driven outputs.
• PINS expectations dominate: if Inspectors expect PDFs, LPAs will continue producing them.
• Reluctance to lead: Few LPAs are willing to be early adopters of digital plans at Examination stage.

Survey Insights

• 60% of plan-making organisations intend to go digital, but none have a clear path to achieve it.
• The biggest barrier is not knowing what a Digital Local Plan actually is.
• Budget and competing priorities are also major challenges.
• There is interest in linking plans, evidence, and data more effectively.

Conclusions

• Defining a Digital Local Plan is the first and most urgent step.
• Engagement with PINS is essential to shift expectations and enable change.
• A Digital Local Plan must go beyond replacing the PDF—it should address the entire plan-making ecosystem, including evidence, data, and user needs.
• Different audiences require different ways of accessing and understanding plan information.

We held a (last minute!) breakout session specifically regarding the annual monitoring process, the software/systems used to do this and how to make it more efficient.  The annual monitoring process essentially involves collating data around the planning decisions made by delegated officers, committee and at appeals (approvals and refusals) within the year (1st April to 31st March), determining if these are on new sites or are superseding/part superseding existing ones, carrying out an annual survey to determine if they are not started/under construction/complete, (if under construction or complete how many units have been completed that year).  We also have to phase future delivery of units to feed into the 5 year land supply and plan period trajectory.  This is for both housing sites and commercial floorspace.  We currently use an Access database to carry out this work, which we can then export as reports to our Authority Monitoring Report and to Excel for further analysis within spreadsheets.

The breakout was attended by around 6 other authorities/organisations.  

One of them (City of London) mentioned their own system that they had developed using MS Fabric, however they did not monitor Housing permissions, it was mainly commercial – we are going to follow up with them to ask for a demo anyway.  

Others had similar processes to Medway with systems used for monitoring (Excel/Access).  

Another authority said they did something with Esri but this could still be problematic.  

Gateshead was highlighted as a different way of presenting AMRs using a Storymap approach – could be something for us to consider in future.  

We all have to present the same Housing Flow Reconciliation return to government, respond to similar ad-hoc (sometimes FOI) requests and produce the same types of annual reports so an up to date, efficient and effective system for all LAs to use would be the way forward.