As an early Valentines present, MHCLG brought us a series of planning reform working papers on Thursday and the one which caught my eye, and I felt worthy of my first blog post in agggggeeeesss (soz been mega biz innit) was the one for Modernising Planning Committees.
The paper follows on from previous discussions and pronouncements on this from labour. Its worth saying before I get onto my usual role of a ‘gob on a stick’ for such matters that the working paper demonstrates a number of things. Firstly that, in planning matters at least, Labour is being consistent and keeping to promises in bringing out such working papers (cast your mid back to the previous administration where there were so many broken promises on planning reform). Secondly that Labour does understand that in some (perhaps many?) incidences the planning committee system is the source of much delay, and even more frustration, for developers in gaining planning permission. Finally, that the party are genuinely looking at reform and are genuinely interested in opinions, I shall be making a response and would urge all of you to as well (you don’t have long – answers on the back of a postcard by the end of this week!).
There are a couple of parts of the paper that I have some thoughts on.
Planning is principally a local activity, because decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents.
Yes. It is a local activity. But in many instances both individually, and certainly cumulatively, planning can has much more than a local importance. Yes, decisions should be shaped by local communities, and the views of local residents should be taken into account, but all too often the views of a number of very ‘vocal’ and very ‘local’ residents shape the narrative at planning committees. Just this week an article hit the BBC website about a scheme I am involved in over in Tandridge:
The site was allocated for 45 homes in the previously withdrawn local plan. As you can see some of the local residents think that 45 homes in a contained site on the edge of the village will mean that Warlingham will become “another dreary suburb of Croydon” – I mean, really!!!! Have some chuffing perspective! Still, it’s better than the local resident who once said one of my schemes would lead to the local area resembling Mariupol.
But what about those without a voice? What about the some 1,800 households on the waiting list for affordable housing in Tandridge of which nearly 50 are in the most urgent need (band A). Recent inspectors for planning appeals in the district have described the housing shortfall as “extremely serious”. Whilst those people are not silenced when it comes to planning committees, their voices are rarely heard. Its why the work of organisations like Shared Voice provide a different focus in these scenarios.
All too often, the voices of the people who already have a home (often built on green belt or green field) drown out the people with no home at all. The planning reform is at best silent on this and at worst Labour are being obtuse on the way in which decisions properly reflect the views of local residents.
The Government also wants to make sure that skilled planning officers in local authorities are given the appropriate amount of trust and empowerment.
This I definitely do agree with. We all know the good authorities to work with and those that get things done. A huge contributing factor in the planning process is the officer vs member relationship. I’ve seen it work badly and played out very awkwardly and unprofessionally in public too many times where officers make a reasoned and balanced recommendation based on evidence, consultation responses, and professional planning judgement, only for this to be overturned by planning committee members in a very public way. It happened to me just last week. On the other hand, I have seen it many times where views of officers are greatly respected, indeed welcomed, by councillors on plan making and decision taking and you get the sense that they are all in it together.
The result of those overturned recommendations are the inevitable appeals that those same officers then have to deal with. It adds significantly to the workload of already stretched planning officers and in many instances leads to costs applications to accompany those appeals. Just recently, Sean Woodcock, the MP for Banbury, told councillors at Cherwell District Council to “get a grip” on the costs associated with appeals having spent 3 times the amount budgeted on defending appeals. He went on to and accuse them of being “wholly irresponsible” with tax payers money. In my opinion this is not in any way unique to Cherwell and it is sadly very much the norm.
In one South East Authority (which I wont name) the planning committee overturned officers recommendation on a large brownfield site which then inevitably went to an inquiry where the appellant claimed full costs (as the head of planning warned they might). The appeal was allowed and costs were awarded. What then happened was that the head of planning then reported back to the committee the decision and significant award of costs against the authority (which had not been budgeted for). The head of planning was told by the chair of the planning committee that the award of costs was seen by councillors as……..”the cost of democracy”. The cost to who exactly? Certainly not those members. Council tax payers? More than likely. Costs to services and scarce budgets in the town hall? Most definitely.
Controversial I know, but where councillors overturn officers recommendation how about they are mandated to do at least some of the leg work for the appeal including writing a statement of case or even appearing at an appeal / inquiry to explain to that inspector what it was about their officers recommendation that they did agree with and provide their own planning judgement on why the decision was overturned?
We want to encourage better quality development that is aligned with local development plans, facilitates the speedy delivery of the quality homes and places that our communities need, and gives applicants the reassurance that in more instances their application will be considered by professional officers and determined in a timely manner.
Yes!!!! And in order to meet that objective the papers gives three potential actions:
a national scheme of delegation – bringing clarity and consistency to everyone about which applications get decided by officers and which by committees;
dedicated committees for strategic development – allowing a dedicated and small group of councillors to dedicate energy to the most significant projects; and
training for committee members – requiring that councillors undertake appropriate training before they can form part of a planning committee.
Well of those, actions two and three already happen in many councils. Certainly training for committee members. But it hasn’t made a difference. Certainly not enough of a difference.
So what of this National Scheme of Delegation? There are a number of options put forward by the working paper. The first being put forward is that officers should be given delegated powers to determine applications which comply with the development plan or reserved matters applications which were compliant with the outline. Or that everything is delegated to officers unless it is a departure from the development plan or on the rare occasion it is submitted by the LPA, a councillor or an officer. Or delegated except of a specific list of exceptions including green belt, EIA application, or over a number of objections.
I’m very much in favour of more delegation to officers but in many instances those delegated powers are overridden where a councillor or parish council ‘calls in’ an application. The process for this is extremely varied from council to council. In many instances it is an unclear and unwritten process which disenfranchises both applicant and planning officer in the process. The working paper is silent on this – unless the process of “call in” is reconciled into any national scheme of delegation then it would very much be business as usual and in fact risks a doubling down of such call ins in order to councillors to retain a sense of empowerment in the planning process.
As I said I’m all for working papers and government asking for thoughts but this needs to go much further. I have some further thoughts which some will find controversial but here goes:
What about a reform of how public speaking and questions at committee works? As an applicant, having spent often tens of thousands of pounds in pre-app fees and application costs you are limited to 3 minutes (sometimes more) at committee and then you need to shut up whilst the pantomime starts. Why isn’t there a right of come back for applicants before something goes to the vote to perhaps address at least what has been said and be able to have the final word?
I’ve seen some successful planning committees who have a “critical friend” at the planning committee who is not a councillor nor officer but often an experienced planning professional (I’m not angling for a job here btw – I have enough to do!). They will listen to the committee debate and then advise on soundness of a potential decision before it is made.
During Covid – all planning committees were recorded and live streamed. Most are still but many aren’t. This should be mandatory and with a record of comments made by members of the planning committee in Hansard style. If we are to improve quality and speed of decision making the government must also raise the bar in terms of accountability. Particularly when individual councillors put forward an alternative motion to refuse / overturn an officers recommendation. There has to be some accountability where this results in decision being overturned at committee and costs being awarded? Right?
That’s just a starter or two for ten and I’m sure others will have more.
So look. This consultation is a starting point but it is certainly not the solution. More is needed if this log jam in the decision making process is going to be solved and this barrier to growth can be overcome.
AB – My own thoughts.
Comments