Ambulance Chasing in the Planning system: Time to Call the Professionals?
Steve Hesmondhalgh
Managing Director & Business Owner at AMS Planning with expertise in Planning, Development and Sustainability. Author of Newsletter 'Planning at the Coalface'. Chairman of Dhubha Mine
As a seasoned urban planning consultant with over three decades of experience on both sides of the public-private divide, I've witnessed the evolution of our profession firsthand. Not meaning to blow the horn for planners but we navigate complex systems, advocate for responsible development, and strive to create positive change in our communities.
Yet, a recent trend concerns me deeply: the rise of ambulance chasing in the planning realm.
Websites offering objection letter services and practices targeting disappointed applicants, raise ethical questions and potentially undermine the integrity of our profession. While the dictionary definition of "ambulance chasing" focuses on lawyers, its essence extends beyond personal injury claims.
In the past I have seen letters from confused clients who have been sent unsolicited letters from companies who are clearly doing no more than buying the planning decision lists from Councils.
Exploiting emotional vulnerability:
To solicit business, in my opinion, regardless of merit, is unprofessional and ethically dubious. Imagine the anguish of a rejected applicant. These websites and practices prey on that vulnerability, promising solutions without transparency or due diligence. Often, their claims are exaggerated, and their understanding of the complex planning process limited. This approach serves to fuel negativity in the planning process, it erodes public trust, and ultimately harms our profession's reputation.
Legal?
While soliciting for clients isn't inherently illegal, we do have a code of professional conduct for both planners and surveyors. The Royal Town Planning Institute RTPI and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors both have strict professional codes prohibiting practices that could undermine public trust or bring the profession into disrepute.
So, where do we draw the line? For me - here are the red flags:
领英推荐
As professionals, we have a responsibility to uphold higher ethical standards. We should condemn these practices and actively work to prevent them from damaging our profession's reputation.
Here's a few thoughts on how we can make a difference:
Planning is a collaborative process. I am not necessarily saying that 'only' planners can engage with clients in the planning system - far from it. Planners, surveyors and architects should and do provide excellent professional advice to clients. However, by fostering open communication, transparency, and respect for all stakeholders, we can ensure that development happens responsibly and ethically.
Now I am all for good branding, social media advertising and while I hate it - even email marketing promoting my company. However, the planning profession deserves better than ambulance chasing. It's time for us, as professionals, to call it out and work together to protect the integrity of our field.
Together, let's ensure that the planning process remains a space for responsible development, driven by ethical practices and genuine expertise, not opportunistic exploitation.
Do you agree? Do you email applicants who have had their planning application refused and how successful is that process? This is a debate and I want to hear others' points if view.
#planning #professional #charteredsurveyors #ambulancechasers
Chartered Town Planner (MRTPI)
1 年Interesting questions but I don't think direct marketing like this is unethical. If you prohibit it through the RTPI code of conduct, the effect would be to create a barrier to entry that benefits a) large, established consultancies who do not need to do direct marketing, and b) unregulated consultancies to whom the RTPI code of conduct doesn't apply. So it wouldn't really be helping the profession in my view. The issue that needs to be conveyed better is the value of dealing with a chartered town planner.
Architect / Director at UAN
1 年On occasion I have been asked to review a refusal by a client who has identified a site where the application was poorly designed and presented by the applicant. So not the original applicant or land owner. One of our clients offers a service where they plug the gaps in the app and strengthen the weakest parts of the scheme then resubmit. In many situations I feel this is a valuable approach and often results in an approval. I guess the difference, relating to the Steve’s post, is a company offering planning consultancy expects payment so is selling a dream that creates a consultancy fee regardless of outcome - which would need a gulible client
Planning Manager at Lake District National Park
1 年Having also worked in both the private and public sector, I can see scenarios where unsolicited contact is not inherently unethical or exploitative. For example, an applicant may not have been represented at all or was given poor service by their existing agent, and a fresh look at a proposal from a different perspective can sometimes lead to solutions. BUT if the follow up involves the other elements you have outlined then it is certainly exploitative.
Chartered Town Planner - Director at Lavata Group Limited
1 年The issue here is anyone can call themselves a planning consultant and do not have to abide by any code of conduct etc…. Town planners need to protected titles and where possible they should be refered to as competent individuals in dealing with the planning system!
A leading Built Environment Communications and PR specialist at the Community Communications Partnership (The CCP) also a former Councillor and lawyer
1 年You are completely right. The honest answer is planning is a long process and anyone who says they can introduce a “quick fix” when the chips are down are either lying or are related to St Rita, the patron saint of hopeless causes and she can personally intervene….