Public confidence under threat as campaign over Planning Bill goes on

Planning, 8 February 2008

Much RTPI policy team time in recent days has been taken up with clauses 150 to 154 of the Planning Bill. These provide for the review of some planning decisions by panels of elected councillors at the local level, as distinct from the Planning Inspectorate. For people with better things to do than read legislation, I will outline the RTPI's response.

Some stakeholders consider that when planning decisions are delegated to local authority officers, it would be appropriate for appeals against their decisions to be considered by a panel of elected councillors, a local member review board (LMRB). The argument runs that if the original decision is about a minor matter where only local interests are at stake and an applicant is dissatisfied with an officer's decision, it is in the interests of efficiency and local accountability for an elected local decision-maker to consider the matter.

The Planning (Scotland) Act 2006 provided powers for LMRBs, although interestingly this did not cause a stir among stakeholders at the time, including the RTPI. So when the planning white paper was published it was almost inevitable that LMRBs would be proposed. The stakeholder response south of the border was different. According to parliamentary research, 87 per cent of business respondents to this aspect of the consultation feel that LMRBs are a bad idea. Some 90 per cent of public respondents feel the same. Nevertheless, this idea has found its way into the Planning Bill.

The RTPI canvassed members at the white paper stage and responded by suggesting that LMRBs raised substantial concerns from local authority practitioners and those representing private interests. These views were put strongly to government via a variety of means. So when. despite our work, the proposal re-emerged in the bill, with little change from the white paper, members asked what the RTPI was doing for them.

The RTPI has been very active in pursuing the policy position. We have met officials, politicians from all parties and interest groups, trying to understand a rationale for LMRBs. We remain unconvinced and have continued to advocate that the proposals should not proceed.

In terms of the overall public interest, the RTPI has argued that it is important to demonstrate transparency and propriety in making planning decisions. Where applicants do not accept a decision and seek an appeal, their perceptions and those of the wider community about the rigour and independence of that appeal process are vital to the acceptance of the result and the reputation of the planning system.

Most stakeholders will acknowledge that justice is done if an appeal can be made to an independent expert who is bound to consider the proposal in the light of development plan policy. In contrast, once the decision is made by an LMRB, a body which in the applicant's eyes is not that distinct from the original decision-maker, the public may not believe that a fair arbitration has taken place and lose confidence in the system.

The LMRB proposal assumes that delegated decisions do not significantly affect the national or regional interest. In individual cases this may be so, but on aggregate such decisions can add up to affect the availability of housing for thousands and hence may be relevant to the implementation of, say, PPS3 or the regional spatial strategy.

From a local government perspective, setting up LMRBs will entail training and operating costs that are unlikely to be met by the fees under consideration by the government. Similarly, there are questions about the volume of cases. In many authorities, as many as 90 per cent of applications are delegated. These authorities suggest that this maintains the balance between decision speed and outcome quality.

But are all such cases appropriate to go to LMRBs? Or will there be the added complication of two kinds of cases - those that go to LMRBs and those that can be decided by an officer but if appealed go to the Planning Inspectorate? Clearly, the RTPI would prefer that this proposal does not proceed, but even if it remains, many detailed questions remain to be answered.

- Rynd Smith is RTPI policy director.