The current planning system has its flaws. The influence of politics in decision-making is certainly one of these. Take this scenario as an example.
Following extensive pre-application engagement, an applicant prepares a detailed planning application for a major development for new housing on a brownfield site in a highly sustainable location; there is a particularly acute need for new housing in this area following years of under delivery. This then goes through a rigorous consultation process and the applicant works collaboratively with the Council's Officers to ensure that the scheme is meeting all development plan policies and providing appropriate obligations. The applicant has followed all best practice and the Officers recommend that it is approved - this is how the planning process should run.
But the application is met with fierce resistance by the Planning Committee and is ultimately refused for reasons which are simply unfounded - even the Council's legal adviser issues a strong warning to Councillors that the Council could lose money if the applicant applied for costs. Instead, pride gets in the way of Councillors who stubbornly vote to refuse the scheme. All the hard work and time invested by Officers amounts to nothing and they are left in the unenviable and embarrassing position of having to defend the Committee’s decision. A situation so embarrassing that the Council later decides to withdraw its defence and accept that it should have granted planning permission. The Planning Inspector awards full costs against the Council and it must now repay all of the appeal costs incurred by the applicant.
But at what cost to the taxpayer?
Well, put simply, it is a waste of taxpayer money. This is money which the public expects to be used to fund key Council services. Public money therefore gets diverted away from maintaining roads, managing waste and providing affordable housing and ultimately the community suffers as a result. But the key issue lies in the fact that the planning system allows this type of decision-making to occur. For Councillors to wholeheartedly ignore the expert advice of their Officers in the first place is, in itself, blatantly disrespectful to the taxpayer. Why should they have the power to make financial decisions on behalf of the Council if they are going to simply turn against the advice of their own Officers? It shows a complete lack of confidence and disregard for the work they do.
The problem highlighted by this example is that sometimes Councillors on Planning Committees fail to do their job properly and turn decision-making into a political affair rather than a planning one and political interests start to cloud their planning judgment. When this happens and costs are awarded against Councils, it should be Councillors who are held accountable for these losses. It is simply unfair for the burden to fall on the taxpayer and so perhaps a better solution would be to fine them.