The cost of neutrality

Katie Kilgallen, Regeneration & Renewal, 3 October 2008

It's not unheard of for local authority planners to refuse to take a cup of tea from a developer because of fears of accusations of shady dealings. However, in a manifesto launched last month on improving the planning system, trade body the British Property Federation (BPF) argues that these "unnecessary fears over issues of probity" stop councils from accepting funding from private developers that could help to alleviate pressures on under-resourced planning departments. As benign as that sounds, can councils ever accept such payments without exposing themselves to the charge of having a conflict of interest?

In truth, it is perfectly legal for developers to provide funding to councils to help them deal with applications. Indeed, there are already a number of developers that make such payments and councils that accept them. The BPF's call for this practice to be used more widely was received well by many in the sector. Campaign body the Town and Country Planning Association welcomed the manifesto as a whole, and in particular the call for councils to accept more funding from developers, but it stressed the fundamental need for complete transparency. The association's chief executive, Gideon Amos, said: "The manifesto is a welcome recognition of the value of good planning. Agreements for developers to fund council planning services can and have worked well, but absolute openness and transparency on such arrangements are essential."

According to BPF senior policy officer Jonathan Seager, this would be the case with the BPF's proposal. "It would be done in a very transparent manner," he explains. "The developer would give the local authority a sum of money and the local authority could spend it according to their need. It could fund extra staff to look at smaller applications, which would free up senior planners to deal with the larger applications."

However, Nigel Smith, director of Hewdon Consulting, foresees complications with this approach. "There is a problem there: these little applications are often the most troublesome, particularly when neighbour disputes are concerned." Smith also points out that it could lead to developers becoming disgruntled if the decision doesn't go their way. "I think if developers didn't get the right answer they'd be bloody annoyed. It would need to be made clear to all parties how it would work," he says.

Quality rather than speed

Clive Dutton, director of regeneration at Birmingham City Council, is adamant that developers simply handing over cash to councils is the wrong approach, however transparent the process. "You pay a higher fee to get applications through quicker. I disagree with that," he says. "We deal with all applications as quickly as we can. We don't want to be accused of offering a first- or second-class service depending on whether people pay more or less."

Dutton argues that speed is in fact not one of developers' main concerns. They want a "quality decision" in a predetermined timeframe, rather than a rushed decision in the quickest time possible. "The thing that is fundamental for developers is that they have clarity, certainty and consistency in the approach to dealing with applications," he says.

Seager agrees. He views the standard 13-week deadline that all councils face for all applications as unrealistic. And not knowing when a decision is likely to be reached can have significant financial implications for developers. "Certainty is so crucial," he says. But he sees developer contributions as a solution, not a hindrance. "If you can determine that as early as possible the developer would see (making a contribution) as worth their while."

Dutton is acutely aware that planning departments are often low on resources. The one at Birmingham council is 20 per cent understaffed. But rather than allowing developers to pump cash into council planning departments, Dutton advocates a more targeted approach: allowing developers to fund the cost of an independent project coordinator to oversee the application process.

The Local Government Association argues for a different approach. It doesn't have a problem with the BPF's proposals in principle, but argues that there would be no need for such ad hoc extra funding if councils had greater flexibility in charging for handling applications. A spokesman for the association says: "At the moment, all fees for handling planning proposals are fixed nationally. If councils just set a charge that covered their true costs there would be no need for property industry funding. Local authorities should have the flexibility to charge the full amount."

Julia Riddle, senior consultant at property consultancy DTZ, welcomes the BPF proposals. Naturally enough, however, she sees a lack of collaboration with private sector planning experts and external consultants during major regeneration projects as the main missed opportunity. "Where the local authority is known to face resourcing issues, there are likely to be significant benefits in outsourcing the analysis of complex information related to large-scale applications. Having such a company identified early in the process, working with the local authority to ensure that the level and content of the information required for the application is right, would also be likely to improve the efficiency of the system." However, she warns that there would need to be clear guidance in place for this to work effectively, "in order to avoid concerns over probity and ensure the most expedient and robust decision-making process".

The BPF is keen to point out that its manifesto is not designed to revolutionise the planning system: its 12 "common sense" recommendations are designed to make the system more effective. Seager says the resources gap in planning authorities is much acknowledged, but central government doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it. "Until planning can move up the political agenda, it will continue to be under-resourced," he says.

The BPF is also quick to point out that it sees little wrong with the application process itself, but that there is a need and an opportunity to make it more efficient. "The BFP supports the planning system," says Seager. "What we are concerned about is the time and money it takes to get applications approved. This is supporting the planning process, not knocking it."

Planning Manifesto: Making Planning Work is available via www.regen.net/doc THE BPF'S 12 PROPOSALS FOR THE PLANNING SYSTEM

1. Improve the recruitment and retention of planners The profession should be promoted as being as important as architecture, and planners' salaries should reflect their expertise.

2. Remove minor applications from planners' workload Smaller applications, such as loft extensions, can be dealt with by planning technicians, freeing up planners to tackle major schemes.

3. Promote the outsourcing of mainstream planning functions Private sector planners can help local authority planners with smaller applications, freeing up their time to deal with bigger projects.

4. Encourage councils to accept property-sector funding for planning work The funding would be used to help increase council resources so that senior planners can concentrate on applications for major developments.

5. Make councillor training mandatory Currently there is no mandatory training. A better understanding of development economics and how the property industry works would help councillors make better-informed decisions.

6. Pool resources across local authorities This would enable councils to support each other during busy times and give them access to a wider pool of expertise.

7. Incentivise local authorities to promote development This would foster better long-term working relationships between councils and private-sector developers.

8. Use future tax revenues to fund infrastructure Tax Increment Financing allows local authorities to borrow against the expected increase in property-tax revenue that follows a redevelopment.

9. Cut the amount of information required to support applications Councils often demand too much information because they fear a judicial review of their decisions. Reducing this where appropriate would free up time on both sides.

10. Speed up the contribution from statutory consultees Penalties could be introduced for late responses.

11. Improve and encourage pre-application discussions Encouraging all parties to address potential concerns at an early stage will speed up the process and reduce the likelihood of developers having to resubmit applications.

12. Require planning appeals to concentrate on the reasons for refusal This would prevent time and resources being wasted going over old, uncontested ground.