05 – Points-Based Evaluation & Risk Assessment Portfolio (PERA) 📊

🎯 Objective

To replace subjective and inconsistent “planning balance” judgements with a national, transparent, and measurable evaluation system. PERA empowers both planning officers and the public with predictable tools, grounded in risk sensitivity, to ensure fairer and more accountable decisions.

🧮 Policy R1 – Universal Points-Based Evaluation Framework for Major Applications

What it does:
Creates a national scoring system for major planning applications, based on defined and weighted criteria such as:

  • Sustainability and climate performance
  • Affordable housing delivery
  • Infrastructure adequacy
  • Developer conduct history
  • Environmental and cumulative risk

Why it’s needed:
Currently, planning decisions are made through a vague “balance of factors”, which varies by officer or political context — making it prone to manipulation or inconsistency.

International Analogy:

  • The UK Home Office uses a points-based system to assess immigration applications.
  • Sweden applies weighted rubrics in regional and urban development evaluations.

📋 Policy R2 – Public-Facing Evaluation Scorecard Format

What it does:
Requires all planning authorities to publish an easy-to-read scorecard alongside each application, showing:

  • How each factor was scored
  • How it was weighted
  • Final pass/fail or risk band result

Why it’s needed:
To build trust and accountability. The public, councillors, and even applicants need to see why a scheme passes or fails.

International Analogy:

  • Ireland’s Housing Delivery Action Plans include performance scorecards.
  • New Zealand mandates public-facing development risk ratings.

🛑 Policy R3 – Trigger Thresholds for Independent Review or Call-In

What it does:
Introduces automatic “red flag” thresholds that trigger:

  • External review
  • Call-in by the Secretary of State
  • Referral to an independent panel

These are activated by:

  • Extremely high-risk scores
  • Developer misconduct flags (e.g. from CEAP)
  • Discrepancies between officer score and LPA committee outcome

Why it’s needed:
To prevent controversial or borderline applications from sliding through unexamined.

International Analogy:
The UK Planning Inspectorate already handles call-ins — this system adds objective criteria for when it must happen.

⚠️ Policy R4 – Risk Weighting Based on Developer History or Coordinated Control

What it does:
Applies higher risk scores to applications from developers who:

  • Have failed to deliver in the past
  • Renegotiated obligations post-permission
  • Used shell companies or artificial land control splits

Why it’s needed:
To allow LPAs to exercise structured caution against developers who have undermined the system previously. Trust must be earned, not presumed.

International Analogy:

  • Credit rating agencies increase scores for borrowers with defaults or hidden liabilities.
  • This system brings similar risk sensitivity into planning.

📘 Summary

The Points-Based Evaluation & Risk Assessment Portfolio (PERA) makes planning decisions explainable, predictable, and defensible. It reduces subjectivity, raises transparency, and empowers communities and officers alike to understand how and why decisions are made. By incorporating risk weighting, independent review triggers, and public scorecards, PERA helps restore trust and stops decisions being shaped by discretion alone.