n PLANNING MATTERS WITH CHRIS GOSLING A matter of opinion

ONE of the main functions of the planning system is to engage with the community.

There is a long history of attempting to ‘do better’ in this area.

This aim to improve engagement runs through the whole history of planning. It is a forum where the private sector, putting forward proposals, meets the community that is likely to be affected by them.

Of course there are assumptions held by users on either side. Developers often believe that the system is stacked against them because of the bureaucracy, delay and difficulty in even getting to speak to decision makers.

The public, as Douglas Adams parodied brilliantly in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, often feel that the system is stacked against them: they are just individuals or small groups, standing alone, quite possibly wearing dressing gowns (in Arthur Dent’s case, anyway).

While both views can’t be true in every case, there is at least a grain of truth in each.

One of the more mundane, but still important, tasks of a development management case officer is reading the consultation replies that a planning application generates.

These can be anything from blunt comments like "I don’t like it" to a stream-of-consciousness rant. I recall one comment from a neighbour horrified that cleaning products on the windowsill of a new bathroom facing the street in a proposed extension would be visible to passers-by.

However bizarre the responses may be, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

I could add that the more people who are engaged enough to respond, the better. There would be little point in attempting to reach local people if they either ignore the letters or believed they would have no influence on the decision to be made.

In some cases, developers are required or encouraged to carry out consultation in advance of submitting an application, to focus and refine objections, if not overcome them.

This may do no more than screen out neighbours’ natural first response that the development will reduce the value of their house, which is never a legitimate planning consideration.

Recently, a potential development in my own street brought home the issue.

I received three letters, none of which saw fit to offer any clue as to what was about to be proposed.

At best, this generates a cloak of mystique. The googling that I undertook appropriately took me to a rather opaque organisation.

Then the engagement was opened up a little, as residents were invited to come to an inconveniently-timed midafternoon drop-in event. A further letter - surely the last - graciously extended this to early evening, but gave no more clues.

It is likely that I will now end up having to respond on the day, rather than having a chance to give the matter some thought. Admittedly this is an initial consultation only, and will most likely be followed by the chance to respond to a planning application.

The developer will have the opportunity to amend their proposal on the basis of public consultation, but for now it strikes me that this process has been an object lesson in how not to engage.

I sincerely hope that no planners were involved!

Chrisgoslingplanning@gmail.com