Skip to main content

Podcast episode 124: Efficiency Savings

Episode number 124 of the podcast is available now via this link or from Apple and Spotify.

In February 2024 Planning published a special report by Joey Gardiner entitled ‘how cost-saving consultants disrupted council planning services’.

"Cash-strapped councils have been following management consultants’ advice to split up their planning teams. Staff have been put into central departments to handle additional non-planning tasks. But the upshot, say critics, has been declining performance and a staff exodus."

Joey’s piece highlighted the tumult at Tandridge, which in 2020 was formally threatened with designation over the quality of its decision-making. A subsequent PAS review of the council’s development management service, which was published in 2021, laid the blame squarely on a team structure “developed during the corporate restructure” that it said was “not fit for purpose”.

That local government has borne the brunt of the age of austerity is well known. According to the IFS, during the 2010s, councils’ overall core funding per person fell by an average of 26% in real terms, with higher council tax revenues only partially offsetting a 46% reduction in funding from central government.

Those of us in the sector know that planning and development has borne the brunt of that. Again according to the IFS, spending per person on planning and development fell by 58% between 2010/11 and 2019/20, which was second only to cuts to services for young people and Sure Start. Perhaps less well known, and what Joey’s article has helped to shine a light on, is the impact on planning services of the kind of whole-authority service transformations that some authorities have undertaken to in order to deal with these financial pressures.

To explore this issue further I invited four of the people quoted in Joey’s article to expand upon their experiences with me. They are old friends of the podcast Mike Kiely, Gilian MacInnes and Paul Barnard, and new friend of the podcast Peter Ford. We talked about the pressures that LPAs have been and are under; why the nature of planning services do not lend it to whole-authority service transformations; and the impact of such upheavals. we also talked about whether there are too planning teams and whether Chief Planning Officers could and should be at the top decision-making table.

The episode starts though with a brief conversation between Joey and I about his special report for Planning. I asked him how he went about putting the report together; what he found most striking in so doing; and what feedback he has had on it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Life on the Front Line

I like it when people get in touch with me to suggest topics for 50 Shades of Planning Podcast episodes because, firstly, it means that people are listening to it and also, and most importantly, it means I do not have to come up with ideas myself. I found this message from a team leader at a local authority striking and sobering though. In a subsequent conversation the person that sent this confided in me that their team is virtually in crisis mode. It is probably fair to say that the planning system is in crisis, but then it is also probably fair to say that the planning system is always in crisis… There is, of course, the issue of resources. Whilst according to a Planning magazine survey slightly more LPAs are predicting growth in planning department budgets (25%) rather than a contraction (22%), this has to be seen in the context of a 38% real-terms fall in net current expenditure on planning functions between 2010–11 and 2017–18. Beyond resources though the current crisis feels m...
59 comments
Read more

The Green Belt. What it is and why; what it isn't; and what it should be

‘I began to see what a sacred cow the Green Belt has become’. Richard Crossman, Minister for Housing & Local Government, in 1964. The need for change The mere mention of the words Green Belt raise hackles. There are some who consider it’s present boundaries to be sacrosanct. According to recent Ipsos polling, six in ten people in England would retain it's current extent of Green Belt even if it restricts the country's ability to meet housing needs. There are some, including leader writers at The Economist , who would do away with it all together. Neither position is tenable, but there is a trend towards an entrenchment of these positions that makes sensible conversations about meeting housing needs almost impossible. The status quo is unsustainable, both literally and figuratively. The past In both planning and cultural terms, the notion of a ‘Green Belt’ goes back a long way. Long after Thomas More’s ‘ Utopia ’ and Elizabeth I’s ‘ Cordon Sanitaire ’ in 1580, the roots of ...
11 comments
Read more

Labour's planning proposals

There is a sense among some that Labour is 'keeping it's powder dry' on housing and planning so as 'not to scare the horses', but actually, when you compile everything that has been put into the public domain, the future direction of policy is relatively easy to discern. This is that compilation, which takes in a couple of press releases (and, importantly, the 'notes to editors'), a policy paper, an extract from a Westminster Hall debate, and Sunday Times and FT articles. ‘How’, not ‘if’: Labour will jump start planning to build 1.5 million homes and save the dream of homeownership Oct 10, 2023 https://labour.org.uk/updates/press-releases/how-not-if-labour-will-jump-start-planning-to-build-1-5-million-homes-and-save-the-dream-of-homeownership/ Labour’s Housing Recovery Plan Upon entering office, the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Angela Rayner, will publish a Written Ministerial Statement and write to...
4 comments
Read more