Building Homes looks at the increasing politicisation of planning and its implications.
For much of its 50 years British planning policy has been characterised by a political consensus concerning its aims and objectives - a consensus not found in education or health, for example. This has been reinforced by the reluctance of the courts to interfere in planning decisions.

The consensus has now evaporated (see below). In opposition the Conservatives have looked to the Nimby vote and in government Labour has taken difficult decisions on housing need. Legal changes like the Human Rights Act have involved the judiciary in substantive planning matters and constitutional change, like the introduction of regional government and regional planning, together with changes to the administration of local government, are likely to reinforce the process of politicisation.

Future directions
Traditionally the political affiliation, if any, of an officer played no part in the selection process for a top job in local government. But in the new era of streamlined local government on the Blair model, perhaps the chief planning officer should be elected. Would a mandate from the electorate enhance his or her ability to drive through sustainable planning policies? Clearly there is a dilemma. Planners who enter local government do so expecting to offer impartial professional advice to elected members, but the ground rules have changed.

As the planning process becomes more politicised, planners will need to decide whether they can make a recommendation or whether their role is to set out the planning implications of different decisions. Many planners will be content to accept the latter but others may consider their training and experience are not being properly channelled.

The lack of third party right of appeal against the grant of planning permission, other than judicial review (which is difficult to achieve) means objectors to a planning proposal must concentrate their efforts on persuading committee members to oppose, particularly where a proposal has the professional recommendation of support from the planning officer.

Committee members, petitioned continually by objectors, see their role on committee as representing these third party interests, rather than necessarily exercising the planning judgement of the decision taker - the role delegated to them by the Secretary of State. In these highly charged circumstances, members will pick over every scintilla of an application, responding to points raised by objectors. As a consequence application committee meetings last hours, the backlog of applications continues, and applicants become more frustrated at the delays.

The justification for all this is local democracy and the need to safeguard the amenities of local residents. It does provide, superficially, a cheap form of redress for objectors, but the overall costs are significant and mainly hidden. Third party rights of appeal would be more expensive for the aggravated party but if it meant the role of committees was simplified with more decisions delegated to officers, overall savings, particularly in terms of reduced delays, would be substantial. The alternative is planning committee members taking to themselves more and more of the technical judgement that hitherto they looked to officers to provide. In such an environment distinctions between the political (interpreted as being aware of the local significance of a proposal) and the planning implications of a proposal become blurred or even hidden.

There needs to be a greater distinction in planning practice between the preparation and adoption of policy which is essentially a political act and the administration of the system of control which should rely much more firmly on concepts of law and equity. The changes in local government management can assist this objective but will have implications for chief officers and councillors.

At committee level greater weight should be given to the officer's report and the opportunity for committee members to reject that recommendation should be substantially reduced. The introduction of a third party right of appeal would act as a safeguard to local residents.

Housebuilders need to involve themselves in this debate. It is not enough to bang on about planning delays. Legal and administrative changes are needed to reform the system.

Ten steps to the politicisation of planning

1 Thatcher's legacy
When prime minister Margaret Thatcher capped local authorities, encouraged contracting-out of services carried out by local authorities and privatised council housing stock, many councillors found serving on the planning committee was the only remaining arena of influence. A high profile on the planning committee could ensure re-election. This has been encouraged by the increasing practice of allowing local residents, parish councils and applicants to address committees. The officer's report can frequently be sidelined while committee members and the public engage in debate.

2 Professionalisation
Many leading local politicians spend an inordinate amount of time on council business. They are often at their desks before the staff. In essence this approach is encouraged by the changes Tony Blair wishes to bring to local government with directly elected mayors and cabinet-style decision taking, with many local members taking on the role of constituency backbenchers with little influence on policy. As a result the planning portfolio holder is as much a full-time planner as the chief officer. This fact is underlined by the government decision that elected members be given guidance on training needs.

3 Public involvement
Public participation was a 1970s buzzword but the public has never shown much interest in the difficult and time consuming task of preparing plans. But in this last decade they have shown every interest in the business of taking planning decisions. No local politician can ignore the groundswell of opposition which nimbyism can provoke.

4 Hung councils
More than half of local authorities in the UK are hung - with no party in overall control. This provides fertile ground for local alliances as councillors from different parties find common cause in pursuit of a local agenda.

5 Legal intervention
Traditionally the courts have been reluctant to interfere with the administration of the planning system. This autonomy has included an unusual legal feature: while local planning authorities are required to state "clearly and precisely their full reasons" for refusing permission or for imposing conditions, there is no requirement on them to give reasons for granting permission. This, allied with the tendency of the courts to widen the scope of what constitutes a material consideration in the determination of the planning application, has given enormous discretion to the decision taker.

6 Planning gain
Local planning authorities have tried to widen the definition of planning gain, to include community benefits rather than be tied down to the narrow requirements of access or drainage to a site. At each stage, government has sought to restrict the definition by setting down precise criteria. The courts, however, through judicial authority have widened the scope of planning gain and planning authorities armed with Section 54A of the act strive to introduce shopping lists of planning gain through local plan policies.

7 Section 54a
So we have the paradoxical situation that on the one hand through Section 54a of the 1990 Act the role of the development plan has been elevated to its current pre-eminence, while on the other planning decisions are increasingly taken with an eye to their political significance, whether it is a call-in by the Secretary of State or an application approved by the planning committee of a shire district against officers' advice.

8 Human Rights Act
Once the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, many in the planning and legal professions thought it paved the way for the creation of a truly independent Planning Inspectorate or Environmental Court. This view was encouraged by the High Court judgement last December on the Alconbury cases when the judges ruled the planning system is incompatible with the Human Rights Act. As is now known the Law Lords did not support that judgement. Those critical of the Law Lords' decision have described it as both pragmatic and politically expedient. This has major implications for the future direction of planning.

9 Reorganisation
Local government at district level has moved fast to implement the changes in the Local Government Act. Many district councils now have in place a structure of cabinet and leader. County councils are also consulting on the options for new forms of decision taking that are available. Decisions on planning applications remain with the planning committee but planning policy formulation clearly resides within the cabinet.

10 Modernisation
Now, more than ten years since the 1990 Act, are we moving again towards a planning system that politicians find obfuscating and frustrating? Planning ministers have pledged to modernise the planning system. Many of us have been here before. When they come into office politicians pledge to reform planning, but after a while frustration creeps in as the system proves resilient to change. As economic difficulties loom, will the Treasury/DTI axis, which is pro-development to boost the economy, become fretful of the apparent lack of progress in reforming the planning system?