Why expertise is essential to inform planning decisions

Life during lockdown has presented some intriguing challenges. Remote working was at first very odd – missing the day to day interaction with office colleagues – but through the use of technology such as Zoom, Teams and Messages, effective ways have been found to remain both productive and creative.

Such technologies have been embraced by local authorities to host virtual planning committee meetings. These replace the formal round table meeting, where schemes are presented by planning officers to elected members.

I recently sat through a virtual planning meeting and it made me acutely aware of how important such meetings are in the development process. They are the democratic forum, where projects are presented by planning officers to members with a recommendation to either approve or refuse each application. Members are then invited to debate the project and then vote as appropriate.

It does not follow that the officer’s recommendation is followed. Should a scheme be recommended for approval, but then refused by members, an applicant can lodge an appeal. Projects are then independently judged by the Planning Inspectorate. This is an objective process, carried out over a number of months, whereby applications are considered against planning policy and legal planning precedent, before an ultimate decision is reached.

Clearly, this can have significant impact on both cost and timescale for an applicant. It highlights how important it is to make properly informed decisions.

The whole process of making a planning application is now a costly and exhaustive process. Thought has to be given to planning policy; design; ecological/environmental impacts and infrastructure issues.

It is why I want to raise the issue of how vital it is that submitted schemes get proper and yet learned scrutiny from members. I know from experience, that a good number of members have a keen interest in development and raising the bar of good, thoughtful design. But there is still a gulf, and I believe there is a pressing need for the many professions involved in development to engage constructively with members and authorities, to help disseminate good from bad.

Too often, schemes are refused or consented on trivial aspects, which can have significant financial implications. This is particularly important today as we seek to design and develop projects, which will have lasting benefit for users and society.

Such decisions need to be subject to the highest level of scrutiny. As architects, our training is a minimum seven years for qualification. This is to fully understand the complexities of building from the initial concept to the completed scheme.

Schemes submitted for planning are measured against policy by planning officers, who have a rigorous training of three to four years. This combined experience should ensure that when recommendations are made to committees, they are done so with professionalism and rigour.

There is clearly some subjectivity as to what constitutes good or bad design, but there is a role here for a formal Design Review, where the most challenging of schemes are considered by experts in their field. Decisions should not be made on personal preference, rather on sound considered judgment.

*Ric Blenkharn is an award-winning architect at Bramhall Blenkharn Architects, malton, www.brable.co.uk