As most will know, the Beaconsfield Society spends a lot of time reviewing and commenting on local planning applications. Why do we do this? We do this because the system is complex and local people need help with understanding and contributing to this. We do not think enough local support is offered by our Councillors generally on the process and objections. Not enough effort is put into protecting against overdevelopment, poor development and gaming of the system by developers - all of which could dramatically cumulatively negatively impact our lovely town. We say we contribute to the town's future, and this is one way we seek as a civic society to do this.
It is a truism that the local planning process is broken. The way the system works is also drifting further away from effective listening to local concerns. We will explain this lower down, but at this point, several factors are impacting local decisions and are parts of a broader broken local system.
With the introduction of a Unitary Council in Buckinghamshire, replacing localised District Councils, a new constitution was adopted for the new Council. This constitution covers many areas, only one of which is planning, but the changes in that respect are dramatic.
The old system meant that if 10+ objections were received, the local Planning Committee would have to review the application and decide on it; it would not be left with council officers. That is not the case under this new constitution - the only way to get an application considered is for one of the Unitary Councillors to call the application in for review.
If no Councillor calls the application in (no matter how many objections are received), the local planning committee will not review it. The decision will rest with Council Officers (employees). You may not know that Councillors never see 96% of all planning applications for a local decision, and these are decided on by council officers. Even when a Councillor calls an application in for review they must first be interviewed by officers to ask why they are calling it in - which suggests there are even more additional tests to getting something reviewed. It is unclear whether officers try to dissuade Councillors at these meetings or whether they can refuse to all a application to be called in but meetings to discuss why suggests pressure may be applied.
Locally the South Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee meets regularly, but rather strangely, considering this is one of the largest towns in South Bucks, has NO representation from Beaconsfield. Only one Councillor (who we think is a poor local advocate), Barbara Gibbs sits on this who was elected to represent Beaconsfield but doesn't answer emails, never attends local meetings with us and is silent on numerous issues; because 90% of her electorate are in Gerrards Cross!
No local representation on this Committee does we feel have an impact on how local applications are considered. (For more, see here https://buckinghamshire.moderngov.co.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=360 ) It was evidenced by the recent meeting where they considered Wilton Park and the Road to Nowhere where Town Councillors asked to speak out about it, as did we. Yet, the developers, rather than having just 3 minutes, were allowed considerably more time to state their case. This feels very wrong for our minds.
Another contributory factor is we feel centred on the two consultations underway about something called the Bucks Council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and the Parish Charter.
These two consultations are currently running, but they overlap in many areas. One is the Bucks Council trying to lay out how they will engage with local people on local plans and other planning aspects. The other is how the Bucks Council and our Town Council will work together.
The SCI has we feel significantly restricted how much local people will actually be consulted and introduced some measures that severely restrict local peoples opportunity to see, comment and participate in local planning issues. The SCI would mean local people only see local plans at the last few weeks of development, which presents very little time to present and counter-argument and leaves local people with a fait accompli on plans. We think this is wrong. Likewise, the Parish Council seems to seek to, whilst sounding good effectively, still restrict local input and is far too limited in its scope and ambition.
Despite grand words in these consultations, the evidence is the opposite. For example, if we as a civic society request to speak at a planning committee, we are allowed very strict 3-minutes to speak - this makes it extremely difficult to present a detailed argument because time is too short - SO is committed to engagement, we feel is not exhibited by having such restrictive processes as this 3-minute rule. Again something elsewhere local consultations are not pushed through, and local people lose out. We don't think rules like this allow for effective voices to be heard.
Another area where planning fails us is petitions - we had to advise local people that signing a petition on the local rabbit farm, whilst worthy, would not influence the decision process on the rabbit farm. It was better to get a local Councillor to call it in as e-petitions not conducted through the Bucks Council's online e-petition system will carry no merit. Thousands signed that petition, but the Council can choose to ignore it. Yet again, a major flaw in local commitment to engaging and allowing for residents involvement.
The local developers know the system inside out and play the system in both how they apply for development and reapply when knocked back; they know how to make a development appear uneconomic. Therefore, they can argue against paying any community impact levy. Sadly, Council employees have traditionally been poor at following through and collecting the levy when it is due. Tiny amounts are actually collected; you can check for yourself and compare it to all the large developments in Beaconsfield in the last few years. More failing in the system.
In the past, we have also been shocked at the seeming closeness of council officers and developers. Even on the local plan, there were private meetings to brief developers and landowners about the local plan, and civic groups were excluded. Why? What were they sharing with developers that the public was not allowed to see? Developers have told us about how closely they work with council officers and how much they get on - none of which feel like a correct way to be dealing with things. The gap between these parties needs to be monitored and distances created, the aim is part co-operation and part Policeman you can't let those get too confused, or residents are let down.
We have also been made aware of how local party politics can creep into the planning equation. Why have no Councillors from Beaconsfield, two of which sit on the Bucks Council Cabinet, not asked any public question in cabinet about our unfinished road to nowhere - why? It has been pointed out that asking such a question would be embarrassing to other councillors, so best it is all dealt with behind closed doors. We now wonder whether this happens more frequently than we are told - are tough questions not longer getting asked because Councillors share party affiliations? The forthcoming local elections may allow changes to come in that allow more probing questions to be asked.
So we have contributed to applications, to consultations and pressured Councillors to speak out against these plans and changes and to represent us more effectively. We have seen some changes, it is fair to say, but as we all know, we are all busy, and these creeping changes that erode our effective representation are dangerous to our town. We know some wag in the Bucks Council, we tell us - well, we consulted on all this, and virtually no one responded.
If anyone wants more information on how we do what we do on planning, we are issuing guidance to residents shortly in an advice sheet for Beaconsfield town residents. Contact thebecsoc@gmail.com if you want to know more.