Take the X Factor out of the planning process and focus on facts instead

By Chris Doré, Business Development Director, TriConnex

Why should planning be any different?

Complex decisions across public health, education and infrastructure are usually delegated to trained professionals who apply established policies and standards before reaching informed conclusions.

Contrast this with the process of granting planning permission for new housing developments.

Despite a rigorous framework staffed by qualified local authority planners and including extensive consultation with stakeholders, the final decision often falls to a committee of councillors.

This isn’t just inefficient, it also undermines the integrity of the planning process, leading to decisions driven by parochial interests rather than the common good.

A framework with baked-in fairness and transparency

Firstly, to understand the redundancy of councillor involvement, let’s examine the existing planning framework:

  • The system is hard-wired to be adequate, equitable and transparent, with planning applications assessed based on a regulatory and policy framework that ensures fairness and transparency.
  • The process gathers input from a wide range of stakeholders, including those most likely to be affected by the proposal.
  • Planning applications are overseen by trained professionals including qualified planners who are trained to interpret and enact policy and conduct thorough evaluations of planning applications. Their expertise ensures decisions are based on a comprehensive understanding of planning principles and the broader impact on the community.
  • The process is controlled and systematic, with planning requests managed within the context of targets and local plans, so that development aligns with broader strategic goals. This prevents ad hoc decisions and promotes systematic growth.
  • Planning consent is often conditional on applicants addressing a development’s impact, such as contributing to local infrastructure or services. This ensures new developments don’t place undue strain on existing resources.
  • The process is uniformly rigorous so whether you’re Jeremy Clarkson or Joe Bloggs, all applicants go through the same exacting process to guarantee decisions are made consistently and fairly and without preferential treatment.

All the above illustrate just how robust and fair our planning process is. It’s a long-standing, evolved system designed to manage societal development efficiently, without requiring every citizen to be directly involved in the intricate details.

The X Factor effect

What’s frustrating is that despite the robustness of the planning framework, the final decision on planning applications is often handed over to a committee of councillors.

  • This intervention by laypeople, often lacking the necessary expertise, transforms the decision-making process into a spectacle and a popularity contest.
  • Councillors are often called on to make crucial final decisions while caught in the glare of impassioned voters and the media.
  • This introduces a level of unpredictability, with decisions at risk of being influenced by political considerations, local biases and vocal minority groups.
  • In many cases, emotional appeals and populist rhetoric drown out systematic and professional evaluations and recommendations put forward by highly trained planners.

Preservation and NIMBY perception versus fact

Much opposition to new development stems from a ‘Not in My Back Yard’ (NIMBY) mentality. This mindset is based on the flawed notion that as soon as someone moves into an area, their current living conditions must remain forever unchanged.

  • Many existing residents feel entitled to an environment that’s forever frozen in time. Based on the flawed presumption that it’s possible to ‘own’ a view or preserve a village or town’s ‘character’, it completely ignores the dynamic nature of urban development and the benefits new housing can bring to a community.
  • Opponents often forget the disruption caused when their own home was built. Their selective memory also wipes all trace of the traffic their presence generates and the infrastructure they rely on. But re-setting the baseline to zero once they’re settled and demanding progress halts from that point onwards, is both hypocritical and unrealistic.
  • Those opposing new developments often make applicants out to be villains. These narratives conveniently ignore the fact that the planning process includes stringent checks and balances to make sure developments are beneficial and any adverse impacts are mitigated.
  • Housing, infrastructure and development are essential for societal growth. Prioritising the preferences of a few over the needs of the many undermines collective well-being and hampers progress.

Pitfalls of public decision making

Imagine the absurd results if the principle of lay decision-making, as per residential planning, was applied across public health, emergency services and licensing?

Let’s see what would happens if those areas were subjected to the same random, unqualified scrutiny as planning applications:

  • Public services: Would we allow a lay committee to decide when bins are collected, or how mental health services are run? I think most of us agree decisions like these require highly specialised knowledge and should be left to professionals.
  • Emergency services: Picture the catastrophic outcomes if public opinion or councillor debates, rather than expert opinion, decided which emergencies our local fire fighters attend.
  • Licensing: Granting licenses to operate essential services such as electricity networks or driving cabs, involves technical criteria best assessed by qualified authorities – not laypeople.

That’s why I believe the intervention of councillors in the planning decision process isn’t justifiable from any defensible position, except perhaps selfish or politically motivated ones.

The existing planning framework, with its trained professionals, rigorous standards, and inclusive stakeholder consultation, is more than adequate to ensure fair, equitable, and transparent outcomes. Introducing a layer of lay decision-making only politicises and complicates a process that should be based on objective criteria and professional judgment.

A future free from the plague of parochial bias

I say it’s time to remove councillor intervention from planning decisions and trust the established system.

This will lead to more consistent, fair and efficient outcomes, free from the parochial interests that currently plague the process.

Do this and we’ll be upholding the integrity of planning as a professional discipline and ensuring our communities can grow and evolve in a balanced and considered manner.