Former Senior Policy Advisor Alleges “Endemic Sleaze” in UK Planning System: A Misguided Critique
Steve Hesmondhalgh
Managing Director & Business Owner at AMS Planning with expertise in Planning, Development and Sustainability. Author of Newsletter 'Planning at the Coalface' and Owner of the Rural Planning and Diversification Group
The recent allegations made by Rohan Silva , an entrepreneur and former policy adviser to ex-prime minister David Cameron, will spark controversy within the UK's town planning community.
Silva's column in The Times claims that the British planning system is plagued by “rampant corruption” and that this has had a “ruinous impact on house building.” Silva's comments will capture media attention (which is of course his plan), they represent an oversimplification of a complex system and unfairly malign the dedicated professionals working within it.
The Allegations
Silva argues that Britain's planning system has become a major political issue due to its adverse effects on house building and infrastructure costs. He contends that the current regime forces developers to opt for unremarkable architectural designs because they are more likely to receive approval. According to Silva, “lucrative planning decisions depend on back-room access to local bureaucrats and councillors,” which he describes as a
“recipe for rampant corruption.”
He further asserts that property developers circumvent transparency by hiring former planning officers as consultants, labeling this practice as “endemic sleaze.”
A Flawed Perspective
Now I might agree that there are too many grey boxes being built and no amount of comments on 'beautiful design' will change that overnight. I have also been critical on here about the decision makers on planning committees. However, I believe Silva’s perspective fundamentally misrepresents the planning system and the challenges it faces. His critique fails to acknowledge the broader context in which planning decisions are made and the rigorous processes that are in place to ensure fairness and transparency.
Oversimplification of the Planning Process
The planning system in the UK is designed to balance a wide range of interests, including economic development, environmental protection, and community welfare. The processes involved are inherently complex and involve multiple stakeholders, including local authorities, developers, community groups, and regulatory bodies. Silva's depiction of the system as easily manipulated by a few individuals ignores the checks and balances that are integral to the planning process.
领英推荐
The Role of Local Planning Authorities
Local planning authorities (LPAs) through their officers are tasked with the difficult job of managing development in their areas. They operate under strict legal frameworks and policies set out in Development Plans, which are subject to public consultation and scrutiny. Decisions made by LPAs are guided by these plans, along with national planning policy, ensuring that they are in the public interest. The idea that LPAs are broadly susceptible to corruption is not only an overgeneralisation but also an unfounded accusation against many hardworking public servants.
Transparency and Accountability
The planning system includes numerous safeguards to promote transparency and accountability. Planning applications are subject to public notices, consultations, and committee meetings, which provide opportunities for community input and oversight. Moreover, planning decisions can be appealed and are often reviewed by independent inspectors, further mitigating the risk of undue influence. The suggestion that planning officers and councillors are routinely involved in corrupt practices undermines the integrity of these processes and the professionals who uphold them.
The Real Issues: Underfunding and Political Pressures
While Silva’s allegations draw attention to perceived faults in the planning system, they divert attention from the real challenges that need addressing. One of the most pressing issues is the chronic underfunding of planning departments. Local authorities have faced significant budget cuts over the past decade, which has impacted their capacity to process applications efficiently and effectively. This underfunding can lead to delays and frustrations for developers and communities alike.
Furthermore, political pressures and policy changes at the national level have contributed to the challenges faced by the planning system. Frequent shifts in planning policy and the introduction of initiatives such as permitted development rights have often undermined the strategic planning efforts of local authorities. These top-down changes can create uncertainty and make it more difficult for planners to deliver sustainable development outcomes.
A Call for Constructive Dialogue
Rather than resorting to sensationalist claims, what is needed is a constructive dialogue about how to improve the planning system. This includes addressing funding, enhancing public engagement, and ensuring that planning policies are clear and consistent. It also means recognising the dedication and professionalism of those working in the planning sector, who strive to deliver positive outcomes for their communities despite significant challenges.
Promoting Consistency and Clarity in Policy
Frequent changes to planning policy create uncertainty and can hinder long-term strategic planning. It is essential to establish a stable and coherent policy framework that provides clear guidance to planners, developers, and communities. It would be nice to think we can get that consistency from a new Government with a decent majority.
Conclusion
The allegations of “endemic sleaze” in the UK planning system by Rohan Silva are a disservice to the many dedicated professionals who work tirelessly to navigate a complex and demanding field.
While there are undoubtedly areas for improvement, the portrayal of the system as rife with corruption is an unfair and unhelpful oversimplification.
By focusing on constructive solutions and fostering a more informed dialogue, we can work towards a planning system that better serves the needs of society and supports the development the economy needs.
I have no desire to be flag waving for the profession, but it does deserve recognition for its critical role in shaping our built environment and addressing the challenges of the time. It is through collaboration, transparency, and a commitment to continuous improvement that we can overcome the obstacles facing the planning system and build a better future for all.
Managing Director, Infrastructure Matters
4 个月Like many of my colleagues in the planning sector, I was disappointed to read Rohan Silva's article. I debated whether to respond or ignore it, but then I came across this superb response by Steve Hesmondhalgh, which addresses Silva's incredibly unfair, flawed, and sensationalist writing. Thank you, Steve for articulating this so well.
Professional Old Bloke
4 个月I am not a planner but for a few years acting as an Expert Witness on need for older persons’ housing I got to observe the planning process and its practitioners as close quarters. The impossible task of squaring the circle in the face of the conflicting needs and priorities of the various stakeholders is not helped by misrepresentation (for example: “all developers are unprincipled and only interested in maximising profit” - apparently the view of one of our local councillors) or by the attention seeking b*****ks of the Times article.
Property Director, Client Relationship Management, Intermediary in Estates & Strategy Consulting, Strategic Development Project Director
4 个月There’s no need for sleaze when the institutionalised make-work keeps expanding. This is overtly the case and intention. If it were not, then the widespread means to reform it, fix fundamental problem or even kick back against waste would be audible and visible. They aren’t. Again, not the fault of individual POs, but there’s a collective responsibility to stop what’s going on. It will even make the job more enjoyable.
Managing Director at Active Value Capital
4 个月There is much wrong with our planning system including (in my view) incompetence and extreme bureaucracy but in many years of engaging with the system I have not come across sleaze/corruption.
Director
4 个月Steve, very pleased you reviewed and commented on this. I saw the article 'on the way in' this morning and was seething by the end of it. My comment to The Times was something like "in my long experience, allegations of 'corruption in the planning system' generally come from those who don't understand the planning system."