Mr. Dave Walsh:

I thank the Deputy; we appreciate good feedback on our annual report. All our staff put a lot of work into it and it is good to hear that it is legible and easy to follow. With regard to performance and the challenges the organisation has faced over the past two years, it has helped that the Department and the Minister have provided the resources for which we have asked. Back in 2013 or 2014, we were down to 138 to 140 staff members. We are now up to 166, plus the board. Our workforce plan includes 16 additional posts to be filled over the next year and a half, and these have been approved by the Minister. That level of staffing resource and budgetary supports means that we will have sufficient capacity. The challenge for the organisation is often in retaining the great staff we have. In a very buoyant market, there are opportunities for experienced and well-trained people in the public sector to move on. Our job, as part of the strategic plan, is to ensure that people want to work in, and stay in, the organisation and that people see a future for themselves in it.

On the Deputy's question about performance, a 39% rate of compliance in respect of normal planning appeals is very poor. This has been caused by the roll-out of the Plean-IT scheme. It is very difficult. I know from personal experience in previous roles and from talking with staff that the new case management system covers the entire operation of the board from reception through to how the board operates. When anything new is introduced, even when it is as well developed as possible, there will always be challenges as people get used to the new system and make sure that it is as functional as it can be. All it takes is a month or two of a slowdown for a backlog to build up. Thankfully, that backlog is now clearing. We have dealt with the oldest cases in the system and we expect that, by the end of 2019, our compliance rate will be above 70% and, perhaps, close to 75%. This expectation acknowledges that in January we were already dealing with cases that had been on hand for longer than the 18 weeks, so we were not getting the benefit.

In my opening statement, I pointed out that the percentage can sometimes mask the actual performance of the board. In 2018, the average time to make decision was approximately 22.5 weeks; that time is now down to approximately 19.5 weeks. For September, it was actually down to 19.1 weeks. Even though the target is 18 weeks, the average performance is only one week longer. It is not as if we have left appeals on hand. We have dealt with the oldest cases and cleared that backlog.