Local government planning decisions should be taken away from elected committees and determined by planning officers
It happened again recently: the planning system got the blame for bad news. When an RICS survey revealed that housebuilding in Britain grew at the slowest rate in almost three years during the first quarter of 2016, delays in the planning system were identified as one of the primary causes.
Yet only two months earlier, government figures revealed that the number of new-build homes being started and finished in England was at its highest level since 2008. The planning system didn’t change dramatically between February and April, nor did delays increase suddenly. So why does everyone acquiesce in this monumental exercise in scapegoating?
The blame game
Over the years I have lost track of the number of problems that the planning system has either been held responsible for, or identified as the solution in relation to, and occasionally even both at the same time. The housing crisis is the current favourite, but I have also noted runaway house prices, climate change, binge-drinking, suburban antisocial behaviour, the economy at large, runway capacity in the South East, the death of the great British high street and even the nation’s obesity epidemic.
Our islands possess a finite amount of land and the planning system was created to mediate between competing interests in relation to the use and development of that land. The existence of a codified set of planning laws is one of the hallmarks of a sophisticated economic and political state – every developed nation in the world has a planning system to a lesser or greater extent. It is a necessary and desirable feature of modern life.
So blaming the planning system for the housing crisis is like blaming traffic accidents on the laws of physics. The truth is that the lack of housing in the UK is not a systemic failure, it is a political failure.
Of course, no politician is ever going to admit that, because blaming planning laws is so much more convenient. Does that matter? Yes, absolutely it does. Not just because it lets politicians off the hook, but much more invidiously because it undermines all those who work in planning.
No more golden days
Planning used to be an admired and respected profession. Town planning was one of the art competitions which formed an integral part of the Olympic Games until 1948. The gold medal for town planning was won by John Hughes of Great Britain at the 1932 Games in Los Angeles, for his design for a sports and recreation centre with stadium in Liverpool. A gold medal! Now, planning officers can only dream of such kudos. They are held in little esteem and are seldom given the respect they deserve.
Nowhere can this be witnessed more painfully than at meetings of local authority planning committees, where planning officers are often shabbily treated by elected members. This is democracy, we are told, but since when did democracy excuse ignorance or contempt? I challenge anyone to attend a planning committee meeting in one of the more lively boroughs in London and not come away feeling thoroughly disillusioned at the quality of the debate, the issues that prove determinative for members and the apparent spin of the roulette wheel that decides whether votes are cast for the grant or refusal of planning permission.
Restoring planning’s lustre
And so I offer an alternative solution to our housing crisis: take planning decisions away from elected planning committees and allow planning applications to be determined by planning officers instead.
The standard reaction to this proposal is a shocked outburst at the affront to democratic accountability. But just pause for thought. We are supposed to have a plan-led system: section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the local plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In practice, the contents of local plans are rarely accorded the central role intended by this statutory requirement, because policies are typically generic and contain limited site-specific guidance. If thorough local plans were drawn up and approved by elected members, with the required public consultations, and with enough detail to control and manage development in their area, then this would ensure that there is no democratic deficit.
If an authority doesn’t want any houses in its area, then say so in the plan (subject, of course, to any requirements imposed by the democratically-elected national government). If it does want houses, the plan can specify where and how they are to be delivered. Then hand over decisions to properly resourced planning officers who will determine individual planning applications by reference to the contents of the detailed plan, national and strategic planning policy and guidance, and by applying their own expert judgment as professionals.
It is not even a dramatic change in law. All planning decisions are delegated – either to a planning committee or to a planning officer. The move would simply involve changing the authority’s scheme of delegation so that all applications are determined by officers and none by committee. No primary legislation would be required.
Faster and better
I have no doubt that this would speed up the planning system significantly. Decisions would become more predictable. More attention would be paid to the contents of local plans – by landowners, local communities and by local councillors – because there would be a strong incentive to get them right. Planning officers would finally be empowered to do the jobs they were trained for. Many members might even prefer not to have the responsibility of determining applications themselves.
Next time you hear someone blaming the planning system, or promising it as the panacea to the latest crisis, ask yourself whether this modest proposal might actually be a swift and more effective way to deliver real change.
Matthew White is a partner and head of planning at Herbert Smith Freehills
