A planning worker says transparency and localism are laudable in principle – and problematic in practice
“I’ve worked as an assistant to council planning officers for over two years. I have three core roles: answering planning-related queries from the public; liaising with customers over complaints; and answering Freedom of Information requests.
It might sound simple, but providing clear answers to planning queries is easier said than done. Changes to guidelines mean that people who were refused planning permission five years ago are now eligible to build. They come to us and say: ‘My neighbour has built a conservatory, so why wasn’t I allowed?’ The constant possibility of further reform means that officers are reluctant to answer questions in a straightforward way. Why give definitive statements about planning applications if their opinions will be outdated in a year’s time?
Morale isn’t helped by budget constraints, which have triggered moves to privatise council services. Unrest is particularly apparent in my department, where people are leaving left, right and centre. This increases the workload for the remaining officers, who now run caseloads of 100 applications rather than 30. That’s too great a burden to shoulder.
The cutbacks are also having an effect on residents. Sometimes we charge for providing information that can’t be found on the website, but the prices I have to quote at the moment seem to reflect a desire to raise revenue, rather than cover costs. It’s embarrassing for us and expensive for residents.
In this climate, it’s difficult to see how the Localism Act will change things. It encourages residents to create plans for their neighbourhoods, but how will they do so if there aren’t enough officers to help them? That’s a shame, as I support the overriding principle of allowing members of the public to make decisions themselves.
Still, there’s a danger here too: I see a lot of consultations and the overall feeling is that people don’t like change, so you’re always going to get objections and you won’t get a massive amount of support for development. I might be wrong, but I think residents will form groups that are instinctively anti-development.
The Act might therefore lead to a slower pace of development, because residents that aren’t qualified planners will have a real influence on the planning process. For example, we recently handled a particularly contentious application to change a well-liked retail centre to a school. The centre is a focal point for elderly residents, and customers were up in arms at the prospect of losing a regular meeting place. They felt a major part of their community was being taken away from them.
The reaction was troubling, given how essential education is to the wellbeing of young people. Can you imagine the outrage if the application was for offices or private houses? It could be argued that this is exactly what the Act should be doing: encouraging the formation of closer-knit communities. But will it ever work in the interests of development?
Localism seems to be one of the coalition’s mantras. The other is transparency – and I find that an increasing amount of my time is spent dealing with that, in the form of Freedom of Information requests.
Two years ago they weren’t a big deal: I would probably deal with about one request per month. Now, I sometimes get eight to ten a week. This wouldn’t be a problem if the Freedom of Information Act wasn’t so ambiguous and if officers were trained in how to deal with requests. Someone recently asked us for a copy of a viability appraisal, which helps decide how much money developers must invest in community infrastructure. I took it to an officer, who said he wasn’t comfortable with releasing the document, but couldn’t say why. It’s difficult trying to explain that we can’t just say no, that we need to justify non-disclosure. This is where training for officers would undoubtedly help.
There’s no doubting that Freedom of Information legislation exists for the right reasons, and it’s playing a real role in protecting the public’s interests. Unfortunately, people are starting to misuse their right to access information. We get students asking us to do their dissertation research!
It is one area where the government communicates its intentions relatively well, though. Yes, there’s room for improvement, but the Information Commissioner’s Office does a fairly decent job. The law could be clearer, but we shouldn’t restrict access to information for the sake of clearer law.
As a local authority employee, I also think that council workers need to make a certain amount of effort to get to grips with the content of the Act. There will always be a certain amount of interpretation, and this requires a real understanding of the legislation in question.
Handled correctly, there’s no doubt that Freedom of Information is in the interests of efficient planning. It sets up good communications between the council, residents and applicants. And at a time when the impact of the Localism Act is far from clear cut, this is exactly what is required.”