The planning process should be quasi-judicial and about professional judgement rathter than political choices, writes Paul Smith
“I’m a democratically elected member so therefore I have voted against an application, I do not have to say why,” a planning committee member in Hertfordshire insisted in a video widely circulated on social media, despite being repeatedly told by the chair of the meeting that he did, in fact, have to give a reason to refuse an application.
In a second video clip from an authority in Essex, a planning committee member angrily told planning officers they should be “ashamed” for repeatedly recommending policy- compliant applications for approval.
On 18 March, in an unprecedented move, planning miinister Matthew Pennycook sent Three Rivers District Council, in Hertfordshire, a list of sites which they should allocate in their draft local plan so as to come closer to meeting their housing need. The day after, members of Three Rivers’ planning committee opted to refuse an application on one of those sites, despite the application being recommended for approval by officers.
Three stories from three different planning authorities in just a single week. It is behaviour like this which a new draft national scheme of delegation - setting out which applications must be decided by officers and which can be considered by planning committees - seeks to address.
Our planning committees are becoming increasingly politicised. Gone are the days of a sober analysis of the planning merits of an application. Instead, too many elected members treat committee meetings as an opportunity to grandstand and score political points.
Planning committee members are not there to reflect the views of local communities, however much they might like to be. Their role is a quasi-judicial one
That happens, in part, because of a common misconception that the planning process is a democratic one. It is not. Planning committee members are not there to reflect the views of local communities, however much they might like to be. Their role is a quasi-judicial one - to decide whether or not an application complies with planning law and policy.
Nor is the number of objections from local residents a material consideration. Rather, it is the planning merit of their arguments that counts. Committees do not vote on applications to determine how popular they are, but because planning judgement can sometimes be subjective, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions as to where the balance lies.
Yet the belief that planning decisions are democratic creates false hope for local communities, contributes to distrust of the planning process and encourages local councillors to search for reasons – however spurious – to refuse perfectly acceptable applications.
While the local councillors who refuse the applications may benefit politically, the costs arising from the refusal are borne by others. By applicants who must delay developments and prosecute appeals, and by local authority budgets which must be stretched to defend them. Cherwell District Council, in Oxfordshire, blew through its entire annual appeal budget in just four months.
And, of course, by the families who would like to move into those new homes but must wait another year instead.
With members increasingly willing to challenge officers’ recommendations, officers are understandably becoming more circumspect in exercising planning judgement.
Applicants are expected to satisfy every consultee regardless of the planning merit of the points they raise, delaying the day on which an application finally reaches committee.
The problems that committee process causes for developers are obvious - more cost and more delay.
The proposed scheme of delegation attempts to balance democratic oversight with planning fundamentals by separating applications into two groups. Planning committees will not be allowed to consider those in “Schedule 1” (essentially smaller schemes, like householder, minor residential and permission in principle applications, as well as most reserved matters applications). They must be determined by an officer.
Applications listed in “Schedule 2” (basically everything else) will be determined by officers unless an elected member and officer both agree that it raises “one or more issues of economic, social or environmental significance to the local area,” or “one or more significant planning matters having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations.” The Secretary of State can issue guidance to assist in that decision.
The intention of that gateway test seems sound - that only matters of genuine significance should be considered by elected members, with professional planning officers being trusted to make decisions on everything else.
However, it raises a whole host of questions. What counts as significant is very subjective. What if the officer and member fail to agree? And when will they make that decision? Surely nobody wants pre-committee meetings to decide whether an application must be determined by committee?
As drafted, the success of the proposals will depend less on the regulations and more on the guidance the Secretary of State provides to help make those judgements. To be effective it must be precise and updated quickly in the event of unintended consequences or other policy changes. For example, if and when the medium site category is introduced, the guidance could state that medium sized sites should not normally be considered to meet the gateway criteria and should therefore be decided by officers.
Ultimately, the planning process should be about professional judgement not political choices. If the proposed reforms help to re-establish that principle, they might begin to restore trust in the system, as well as speeding it up and helping deliver more of the development we so desperately need.
Paul Smith is managing director at the Strategic Land Group
No comments yet