Emotions run high when it comes to planning, says Nick Raynsford, who had experience of it as a minister. So weaknesses in the system must be addressedPlanning is a subject which can easily arouse strong feelings and passionate debates. Just how potent the issue can be was brought home to me very forcibly in 2003, when a planning application for an infill housing development on a brownfield site in my constituency generated more letters of protest than the imminent Iraq war. Local authorities can easily find themselves wrong-footed in how they deal with planning applications. On one hand, they can be berated by developers for putting up huge obstacles. On the other, they can be pilloried by local residents for allowing developments that arouse hostility. The planning regime recognises these conflicts and offsets local authority planning powers with a wider national framework and right of appeal. Getting the balance right is not easy. Free market enthusiasts tend to rail at the ‘bureaucratic’ restrictions imposed by the system and claim productivity and wider economic efficiency would flow from a more permissive framework, as in the US. However, we are a small island, with a limited and precious supply of green space, which would be rapidly gobbled up if there was a planning ‘free for all’. While broadly supportive of the existing regime, local authorities are impatient with the appeal process, claiming local decisions are too easily overruled by planning inspectors or the secretary of state. Yet we all know that in some areas with real need for housing, permission for housing developments would never be granted without a wider national framework and right of appeal. Of course councils are in the frontline, and have to face heavy pressures from the public. This is endemic in a democratically-accountable planning system. But I know I am not alone in my belief that in some circumstances local planning committees turn down an application, knowing it is likely to be approved by an inspector on appeal. These thoughts are very much in my mind as we digest the latest report from Kate Barker, extending her work on housing needs to the planning context. In advance of its publication, we saw a typical ‘softening up’ exercise, with selected newspapers briefed with stories about major international investment being lost to the UK because of rigidities in the planning system. I have to say my own recollection of the quoted example, which involved decisions taken when I was planning minister, was very different. The planning system actually proved remarkably flexible in facilitating significant new corporate investment while avoiding a wholesale surrender of important principles, such as the need for sustainable solutions and the protection of the environment. But there are still serious concerns about the way in which the planning system operates. Despite significant increases in the fees payable to local authorities and the availability of planning delivery grant, many developers feel the way in which their application is handled is far from satisfactory. In my own experience, the quality of service varies dramatically. There are explanations – difficulties in recruiting and retaining well-qualified and experienced staff, and coping with variations of workload. But few would dispute the fact that there is still scope for most authorities to do better. The same applies to the planning inspectorate and to ministers. At a time when the planning process is under more intense scrutiny than ever before, and when some siren voices are calling for the dismantling of safeguards which have served us well over several decades, it is in the interests of democratic decision-making that we tackle the remaining weaknesses in the planning system. Otherwise, we may come to regret the failure to convince a sceptical public that local authorities can run a fair and efficient planning and development control system. n Nick Raynsford is the former local government minister
