The Silly Season

We all know that the summer is referred to as the silly season, with everyone on holiday and nothing serious with which to fill newspapers. But Summer 2010 is definitely turning out to be the planning silly season.

The thrust of the new government’s thinking seems to be to cut red tape and make it easier to get recovery moving. Cut out the regional planning layer and place more emphasis on local decision making. Great news for architects surely?

Well in theory yes. But in practice there are contradictions and arbitrarily applied blind adherence to ‘rules’ that would not seem out of place in a Kafka novel.

Greater freedom to carry out small works under Permitted Development (PD) rights versus removal of PD rights as part of planning approvals. The desire to make better use of brownfield sites versus a sudden blanket ban on building in domestic gardens regardless of their size or location.

Bypass the planning system altogether if ‘the community’ (however that is defined) agrees it wishes to build affordable housing.

I have already fulminated against the current love affair with bats. I have nothing against the little beauties and am happy to see them properly housed and watered. But they are already perfectly well protected by law. Why should it need  local planning authorities (LPAs) to get so involved in their livelihoods? And why should that involvement lead to so much time and expenditure for clients?

A recent domestic extension project (yes, domestic extension!) required an initial bat survey that, having proved the existence of a bat roost, required a European Protected Species Licence, that required two further bat surveys and the presence of a licensed bat worker when work starts on site and implementation of appropriate ‘mitigation measures’ – which basically involves putting up some bat boxes nearby as an alternative roost – plus a whole load of reports, all of which has cost the client thousands of pounds.

Why not get clients to confirm that they are aware of their obligations to bats and agree to put up some bat boxes just in case? That’s all that is really needed at planning stage. Someone to police the situation when work starts on site is fine, but that could be handled through building control.

And when we reach the stage whereby a planning application cannot even be registered unless a bat survey accompanies the application (let alone a flood risk report, a statement of how the scheme addresses sustainability issues and the laughably loopy sequential test assessment) we have surely plumbed the depths of silliness. 

I understand that LPAs can no longer afford to give free advice. You want to know if you have a chance of getting planning approval, you make a planning application and you pay for it. But part of the quid pro quo for doing this should be that you then receive an assessment of the likelihood of success before you decide whether or not to embark on the cost and time delay involved in commissioning the umpteen specialist reports that may be required.

Development – that catch all term – is intimately involved in making places and communities better. A broad overview is needed if we are to achieve consensus about what should or should not happen in a given area. The ability to tick lots of boxes and ‘trick the system’ can never substitute for that. Nor should we lose sight of the importance of giving quick, timely advice to applicants, that permits them to make informed decisions about how to spend precious resources.

Thank you, I feel better for having got that off my chest. For a few hours anyway.