The idea of Town and Country planning developed after the Second World War when post war reconstruction was deemed to need national control, to direct scarce resources and perhaps reflecting the still prevailing mood that stemmed from the war years of militarisation – that systematic command and control was the way to achieve a goal. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 started with the premise ‘planning permission will be given unless……’. There were then a limited number of reasons for permission not to be given.

Even this approach has a logic to it if you can be reasonably certain what the reasons are for obtaining planning consent. These have been embodied in Local Plans, the bottom layer of, until recently, three layers of planning policies. Government set out the top layer of Policy Statements, these were translated at county level in still quite broad terms in Structure Plans and then, at town level came the Local Plans. Someone wanting to know what they could do to their house, their factory or their land should have been able to look at the plan and see exactly what they could do, apply for consent and be sure of getting it. That was the theory.

In practice the various layers of policy became mired in argument, political fights and uncertainty. Worst of all, even more gold plating was added to the requirements of planning applications so that, even if a site was specifically identified for a certain use it has become a major production to achieve an implementable consent.

So somebody in Government came up with the idea of making the system easier, quicker and more flexible! Oh, dear.

The old system is now being replaced by a new cascade of policies. Government policies remain at the top but, instead of county plans we now have regional plans, covering many counties. Below them there should be Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) for each borough or local administrative area. Most of this new system should have been in place by 2008-9 but this seems improbable in even the most optimistic eyes. The result is that, in many places, the available Local policies may be in Local Plans written 10 years ago when things were very different.

A more technical analysis of the preparation of Local Development Frameworks will be available under a separate document on this website. To put it mildly, the new system is limping badly and is struggling to make it out of the starting gate. It is unlikely to clear the hurdles along the course with ease.

Against this uncertain policy background, planning applicants face a myriad of requests from planning departments for more and more information, much of which is superfluous and does not add to a better outcome. Planning officers continue to object to details without offering clear alternatives and, in many cases, different officers have opposing views on the same plans.

Add to this the ingredient of ‘wildlife conservation’ and it all gets worse. It seems to surprise some people that animals will colonise almost any piece of ground or buildings. There are now so many protected species to be found that the development process has slowed, if you will forgive the pun, to a snail’s pace. Now no-one advocates the slaughter of animals unnecessarily but the restrictions imposed on development are now so onerous that it is not unusual for two or more years to be added to the development process whilst animals and plants are studied, collected and translocated on a piecemeal basis.

Even if a site is allocated for development in a Local Plan or LDF (the allocation process itself can take many years) a developer of, say, a site for 100 houses can expect between two and five years, and hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs, before he can start building. Is it any wonder that Britain produces fewer houses now than it did 20 and 40 years ago?

Is There a Way Out of This Impasse?

In the short term, probably not. In the medium term, if the government really wants to encourage house building and free ordinary people from the clutches of planning bureaucracy then a radical approach needs to be taken to the interpretation of policies. Firstly, every local authority must change its attitude to being for development unless demonstrable harm can be shown (the original idea of the 1947 Act). Once a site or building is allocated for broad use the effort should be to give whatever consents are needed quickly and with the minimum of conditions. The difficulty of achieving this attitudinal change should not be underestimated.

Secondly, the ‘supply chain’ leading to a consent must be analysed to determine what is holding up development and solutions actively found. For example, if the translocation of animals is required, local authorities should have sites identified for receiving the species. This will reduce the time and costs in clearing the development site.

Thirdly, we should all stop trying to achieve perfection and holding it still. Many of the most loved places in Britain were built long before planning. They are higgledy piggeldy, quirky, inconsistent and, most of all, have emerged over centuries. It is people who make a place to live, given time. It may not be a pretty process at times but if people are allowed to amend their surroundings those places will become people-friendly and the residents will defend it against degradation.

Planners currently seek to achieve a picture postcard solution immediately a building is finished and then prohibit any change without bureaucratic involvement. This approach to the planning process is not succeeding and it should shrink back. Many minor buildings should not even have to apply for planning consent, only approval for construction standards (Building Regulations).

Fourthly, a relatively non-political approvals process, free from local political swings and roundabouts, should be regarded as the normal method of determining applications. This system actually exists in a limited form. It is currently called the planning appeals process and it is often where developers seek a decision that is quick and relatively understandable. Professional arbiters (appeal inspectors) measure an application against policies. Even now it is not uncommon for developers of large schemes to elect to go to the more expensive appeal rather than wait for a painfully slow and inconsistent local authority decision.

If manpower resources were diverted from planning authorities to the independent process it would allow it to be speeded up and bring a measure of consistency to the determination of applications. Local policies would still be determined locally but decisions would become less political and emotional and more clinical, returning a degree of certainty to an uncertain process.

Those entrenched in the current system will rarely advocate change. We all bemoan the lack of delivery and the usual political reaction is to invent more rules to solve the problem. That is not the answer. Simplification, if embraced, can provide a solution and a fairly fast one at that.

To those clients caught up in the present system we can offer little immediate respite. It is as frustrating to us as it is to you. At times we are embarrassed by the requirements of a system that adds little to the effective outcome but can take massive amounts of money to operate.

In the medium term there is only one thing to do – complain loudly. And appeal!