By Ben Shenton
THERE was a mythical Island where there was an inefficient and unproductive government who preached productivity without realising the absurdity of their message.
To give you an example, they had only one government-owned fee-paying school, and each year there were double the applicants for the places available. While the application process was largely based on the academic ability of the student, the government wanted to ensure all applicants could afford the expensive uniforms and books.
In a belt-and-braces approach they ruled that you had to buy the uniforms and books, at great expense, before you could apply. You are probably thinking how ludicrous this mythical land is. Parents did this with the knowledge that it was hard-earned money wasted if the application was not approved. The uniforms and books had to be presented at the application meeting, and of course for 50% of the applicants this was an expensive, unproductive and wasteful exercise.
They obeyed the system without question as they did not want to prejudice their application – and they were keen to get a place for their child.
One day a commentator for the local newspaper said to the Productivity Minister: “Why don’t you look at the application based on the academic and other relevant attributes of the student and pass it ‘subject to’ the ability to purchase the uniform and buy the books. This way the unsuccessful applicants won’t waste thousands of pounds on uniforms and books that are completely useless, and the Island will have more money to invest productively in the economy as these funds may be spent elsewhere, more productively.”
The Productivity Minister, who had previously only ever organised unproductive seminars to tell people to be productive, thought this was a brilliant idea. No longer would unsuccessful applicants spend money on stuff they did not need, but he needed some good news as the Island was currently without a ferry service and had fallen out with all its neighbours through extreme incompetence.
As a reader, you are probably asking where I am going with this, because surely no government would act in such a ludicrous manner. Please bear with me.
The Productivity Minister was so impressed with the idea of the newspaper commentator that he contacted him and asked if there were any other areas of government that operated in a similar manner.
“Well,” said the commentator, “your planning processes are actually the same as the example above. A planning application is largely determined on key planning principles such as location, design, light, privacy, mass etc, but you also request a load of expensive information that is not actually required unless the application is passed. This can add thousands of pounds to the cost of the application, thousands of pounds of hard-earned money that could have been utilised elsewhere.
“Applications should be passed ‘subject to’ receiving this information as in reality it is only really needed if the application is passed in principle. The majority of applications are not passed, and for all of these, it is money down the drain.”
Examples of “subject to” information in planning applications include:
-
Basic ecology surveys costing around £650 – if bats etc are found this could rise to £1,500+ for additional surveys. Bird surveys, badger surveys (even though we don’t have any), etc fall under this category.
-
Mains foul drainage reports at £75 per hour can be up to £800 and you can only get it from one source, the government, who don’t justify their pricing and are really expensive. It used to be free. Given the number of hours each report takes I think Brian the Snail from Magic Roundabout works there.
-
Asbestos check survey on the existing building £1,000.
-
GD5 policy – sustainable design principles and Embodied Carbon Life Cycle assessment £6,500.
-
Low risk of flooding (0.5% AEP) with Medium Future Risk Flood Risk Assessment £2,250.
-
Structural conditions survey of existing buildings £1,500.
“Furthermore,” the commentator added, “three other changes to the planning process are required”:
1. The 50% refund of the planning application fee if the application is refused should be reintroduced. It was a key principle when fees were introduced in the late 1990s. I don’t know when it was removed. Incidentally, when fees were introduced the bulk of the monies had to be spent on the environment – that’s how they sold it to the politicians of the day. Of course, the reality turned out to be different. This change would turn the incentivisation of the Planning Department from refusal to pass.
2. I don’t like copying the UK, but the following should be introduced – tailored to Jersey. “According to the 2012 UK Regulations, planning fees shall be refunded if a planning authority fails to determine an application within 26 weeks of the date on which it receives a valid application.”
3. At planning meetings, the applicant should be given more time to put their point across.
At a recent one I attended, those against the application (primarily the Planning Department) had the floor for around 75% of the time of the determination. The applicant, who had paid a fortune to put his case was not, in my opinion, given a fair hearing or allowed to counter some of the falsehoods raised.
And finally, I attended a planning meeting last week and it was evident that most present had never read Article 21 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 regarding variation of conditions of planning permission (Planning, please add the fee for Article 21 variations to your fee menu).
During the meeting, the committee decided to keep a planning obligation that was, in my opinion as a former legislator, completely unenforceable and outside their powers. There are probably thousands of planning permits in circulation with conditions that the committee of the day did not have the power to give, and are therefore unenforceable.
For the benefit of the planning officers, the politicians and the general public, it is probably worth clarifying the limited powers of a planning committee when placing conditions on developments.
Planning conditions should be kept to a minimum, and only used where they satisfy all the following tests:
-
Necessary.
-
Relevant to planning.
-
Relevant to the development to be permitted.
-
Enforceable.
-
Precise, and
-
Reasonable in all other respects.
The Planning Committee need to be satisfied that each condition they impose passes these six tests and are within their legal powers.
The above changes will improve the planning system for the benefit of the public. Do you think anything will change?
-
Ben Shenton is a senior investment director. He is a former politician, Senator, who held positions such as minister, chair of Public Accounts Committee, and chair of Scrutiny. He also assists a number of local charities on an honorary basis, and can be a bit gobby.
