INTRODUCTION

  1.  Firstly, it is important to agree what the purpose of consultation is. BCAAC considers that in a planning context, its primary function is to engage local people or groups who may be affected to enable them to participate in the protection of their own interests and the improvement of their locality and its amenities. Public consultation is one of the fundamental justifications of our present planning system and is relied upon to give it legitimacy. More thought needs to be given to the extent of consultations carried out. While adverts appear in local papers, these are easy to miss given the fragmented nature of our borough. Site notices are also posted for certain applications, but can be easily removed.

  2.  If this is correct, then it is vital that it is more than a process to allow people to let off steam and manage potential conflicts. It is essential that planning authorities give due weight to consultation responses they receive. Therefore, this inquiry is both timely and most welcome.

  3.  The quality and clarity of the information and visual material submitted is vital in assisting members of the public comprehension of what is proposed and their ability to make meaningful contribution to the planning decision which may affect them directly. Our part of central London is extensively developed with some of the highest residential densities to be found cheek by jowl with major national educational and healthcare institutions. Therefore, effective consultation is especially important in such areas. Daylight, sunlight and noise pollution are real issues for local people as well as impacting more generally on environmental quality and the character of the area.

  4.  BCAAC currently has five architects who are in practice and often we have difficulty in understanding what is proposed although we are experienced in reading and interpreting architectural drawings. It follows that if we find difficulty in assessing many of the hundreds of applications we see every year, then those who do not have our professional expertise must be at a considerable disadvantage.

  5.  This must include the large proportion of development control case officers who do not have an architectural/design background. They must experience serious problems in formulating recommendations and advising members when they have inadequate information. This certainly appears to be the case judging from some committee reports.

  6.  BCAAC wishes to stress the fact that the standard of many submissions we see is depressingly poor, even though the majority are submitted by architects. It should be remembered that all our applications are in conservation areas where standards of scrutiny should be especially high.

  7.  Therefore, central government could and should provide more focused and specific guidance on the type of material to be submitted in support of planning applications. There is too much flexibility and uncertainty, which is abused by those who know what they are about. Planners should have increased powers to reject poor submissions and to require material which gives an accurate impression of new developments in their context. We are still seeing applications where the adjoining buildings are not shown and so it is impossible to assess buildings without the context being shown.

How public consultation fits into the local authority decision making processes

  8.  In Camden, when elected members turn down the officer's recommendation to approve a development, councillors are told that they will have to appear at the inquiry to defend their decision. Recently, when the Chair of our development control committee asked for an external professional witnesses to be engaged to represent the council at a planning inquiry, he was told that there was not a budget allocation to cover the cost.

  9.  If this can happen in a central London authority, it is easy to imagine the situation in a remote district council. This tends to undermine the legitimacy and integrity of the whole planning process and weakens local democracy and accountability. It also brings into question the whole purpose of public consultation.

The general effectiveness of public consultation and its impact on local authority decision-making and possible ways to improve it

  10.  Delegated decisions. Camden like other authorities has a target of 90% of applications being determined by officers under delegated authority. This means that interested parties are unable to have a direct involvement in the process because they are unable to make deputations and address councillors immediately before a decision is made.

  11.  Camden, like many authorities has adopted a procedure which enables individuals and interested parties to speak both in favour or in opposition to a planning application and the applicant has a right of reply, which they use frequently. We fully endorse this procedure and the Council goes to considerable lengths to ensure local people are aware of it.

  12.  Delegated decisions are made by officers behind closed doors, unlike decisions made via the elected members in committee. This is inevitable given government targets for the timescale for determining applications and the resulting delays caused by committee cycles. BCAAC considers that this is an issue for most, if not all, local authorities. This having been said, we recognise that there will always be a significant number of applications which should proceed via the delegated route, especially given the numbers of applications being submitted. However, there is a need for wider discussion and agreement on delegation procedures.

  13.  Before the latest government targets were introduced, Camden had a system where all applications, to which it received objections following public consultation, were automatically referred to the development control committee for decision. However, this was dropped and now there is a meeting of a member panel to decide whether or not cases should be referred to the development control committee.

  14.  As a result, the agendas are now often very short. The question is does this improve the quality of decision making and the local environment? While BCAAC is fully in favour of an efficient system, it recognises that planning decisions can have long-term effects on local people and their environment. It considers that the way the system currently operates does not give consultation enough weight in influencing decision making. However, even when the system does work and amendments are made by applicants in response to consultation comments; a re-consultation is not always carried out to find out the views of the original consultee.

  15.  There is now an additional and rather insidious pressure exerted by central government. Authorities are now, in effect, bribed by central government with performance grants for their speedy processing of applications.

  16.  Of course, their remains the issue of third party rights of appeal, which relates directly to consultation issues. The resulting inequality distorts the whole system and determines the mindset of many planners and members towards development control. This means that the objections of local people to applications which affect them tend to be set aside because applicants can threaten appeals, which are often expensive.

  17.  Many developers are skilled at playing the appeal game and as a result planning decisions are influenced by other considerations than the merits of the case. It is interesting to note the result of the consultation undertaken by the Scottish Executive on this issue http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/planning/roapacr-00.asp and the attitude of the Select Committee on this issue raised during its consideration of the Planning Green Paper.

Whether the new cabinet structures in Local Government facilitate consultation and the involvement of constituents in decision-making

  18.  The development control committee is one of the few areas where decisions are made by anything like an old style Council Committee. Camden Councillors were very reluctant to introduce a cabinet style structure when it was first proposed by the government. It now means that many important policy and other decisions are taken by one or two executive members rather than a committee, which would normally include ward councillors. These can include decisions relating to street management schemes or the designation of conservation areas. Sometimes decisions regarding such designations may need to be taken as a matter of urgency where there is a perceived threat. Executive members have proved reluctant, perhaps understandably, to take emergency action on their own, whereas under the Committee system such reluctance was less evident.

  19.  As a result, the decision-making process is more remote and democratic accountability has been diluted. While the executive members do allow for deputations from the public at their meetings, these members are almost bound to be supporting the party line of majority party. They are unlikely to provide the same degree of scrutiny of officer recommendations as a committee made up of different political parties would.

  20.  BCAAC was first established by Camden Council in 1968, although we are independent of the Council. We are automatically consulted on applications and therefore could be considered to be the "usual suspects". However, we are contacted by local residents and groups seeking our support in engaging in the planning system with which they may not be too familiar. Committee members also represent national as well as Bloomsbury based organisations.