How Wales Works: Why do crap developments get planning permission?

Matter of opinion, or flaw in the system? What counts as a "crap development" in the first place? Student flats are normally cited as the main culprit – often resembling Soviet Khrushchyovka with "wacky" cladding - but they're usually confined to Swansea or Cardiff. In other urbanised parts of Wales, out-of-town retail parks and housing developments by volume housebuilders are often picked out. In rural Wales, it's usually anything that sticks out like a sore thumb. Perhaps one of the best definitions is a development that's universally disliked to the point that there's nobody left to defend it except those involved in building it. In more practical terms, while it may include developments that make the streetscape worse/"architectural blight", it's not entirely down to architecture. They may have limited or under-developed facilities. They may have issues with things like regular flooding, "fleeceholds" and unadopted roads. They are usually perceived to be excess to local requirements or built in a hurry (resulting in issues such as poor workmanship). If they were cheap, it wouldn't be as much of a problem (because you get what you pay for). But they're usually not cheap. The LDP System &amp; Quasi-Judicial Role of Planning Committees Ultimately, developments in Wales are guided by the Local Development Plan system. Local Development Plans (LDPs) are how planning authorities determine – based on available evidence – what should be built and where. LDPs aren't as strict as zoning the United States, so in Wales we do at least end up with some mixed-use, mixed-density developments. For example, if a part of town or city has an LDP, masterplan and supplementary planning guidance encouraging high density mixed residential and retail, then planning applications for those types of developments are more likely to be approved. Why? It's at least partially down to planning's quasi-judicial role. That sounds like the quasi-judicial role binds the hands of planning committee members, but that's not entirely the case - especially when it comes to the details. Digging into the Details: Material & Non-Material Considerations To recap, planning officers and members of planning committees are expected to base their decisions on planning policies rather than personal or public opinions. But when it comes to the details of a planning application itself, officers and councillors can take specific issues into account when coming to a decision. So planning committees and planning officers can base their decisions on the layout, appearance and design of a proposed development. Therefore, "crap developments" shouldn't happen on paper - yet they still do. Why? Firstly, the deadlines. Planning applications usually have to be decided within 8-16 weeks of submission. This "deadline" depends on the complexity of the proposal and whether things like an environmental impact assessment is needed. That's not that long. While the bulk of the work will be carried out by planning officers – who will be under pressure to meet those deadlines - members of a planning committee may only have an hour or two to speak on a proposal at a meeting. They could be discussing half a dozen or more applications plus other items of business. In that scenario, a qualified planner - from a position of authority - tells a planning committee that a proposed development is in line with the LDP and would likely result in a lengthy and expensive appeals process if rejected. The natural reaction of members – with the quasi-judicial role in mind and the fact they're sitting through maybe a 2-3 hour meeting – may be to simply rubber-stamp it unless there's a serious controversy that requires more discussion. They may suggest new terms and conditions, but it would be very difficult for them to reject it based solely on it "being a bit crap". They have to prove it's crap and make a sound argument - and unless you're an architect or urban designer that may be difficult to do. They will also have little to no control if a developer seeks to significantly amend their plans after receiving planning permission - like renegotiating Section 106 agreements. All of this is before factoring in politics. Councillors from a party/group or parties that control the council are perhaps less likely to reject planning applications that fit with the council's agreed LDP because they would be effectively rejecting their own party's policies. They wouldn't want to be seen as being awkward unless they have things like seniority or popularity on their side. The Crap Development Conundrum The issues here seem to be a mix of: A failure on the part of developers and planning departments to properly consult or pick out possible faults at an early stage - possibly as a result of a mix of budget cuts to local planning departments and more expert advice being available to developers (such as through private planning consultancies). Strict boundaries and timescales in which planning applications need to be decided and (as suggested by a previous Senedd Committee ) an emphasis on deciding whether an application is "bad enough to refuse" than "good enough to approve" (though more often or not the situation is somewhere in the middle). Architecture that prioritises value for money and speed of construction over good design, but still fits with an LDP or masterplan and would be difficult to reject on planning grounds. We've already gone some way to fixing the first issue with the introduction of pre-application consultations. The problem is they're not promoted very well (perhaps deliberately) and you often have to actively look for them. The pre-application process ought to flag up potential issues early on – by the public, councillors and planning officers – and carry weight in decisions on the planning applications themselves; failing to take into account recommendations from a consultation without a good reason should, for example, lead to grounds for refusal. Maybe there's an opportunity to simplify the planning process – as recommended by a committee during the Fifth Senedd – but nobody has set out how it can be simplified and it could lead to all sorts of unintended consequences. Welsh planning law will eventually be brought together into a single code as part of the Legislation Act 2019, but that's years away. It wouldn't hurt for planning committee members to undertake some form of basic architectural training – if they don't already - or training in "what makes a good development". This would be so they can properly construct arguments around things like livability, design and layout which won't be so easily dismissed and be a bit more sophisticated than NIMBYism. There may be an argument that the most complex planning applications should be debated in chunks over several planning committee meetings - with the least controversial elements agreed in principle early on and more controversial elements discussed in detail at a later stage before a final decision. So it would be more like an inquiry than just one item of business discussed in one session. Lifting minimum standards in architecture would require powers Wales doesn't currently have. [jnews_carousel_1 number_post="3" include_post="5237,3471,85"] Building regulations are generally devolved with a few exceptions. Most of the problems relating to architecture, materials and project management are likely down to developers cost-cutting than devolution. As hinted, council planning departments have seen their budgets halved since 2008-09 , resulting in a loss of skills; working as private planning consultants is often far more lucrative than working in a local planning authority. It's likely to be a similar story for local authority building inspections. Not all new-build developments are crap and keeping costs down isn't a bad thing in itself (modular construction is starting to become fashionable, for example). It only becomes a problem when it's at the expense of good design and good project management which affects the quality of workmanship (i.e. expecting contractors to do too much in too little time with poor materials). Then these developments become unpleasant places to live or be around, not just to look at. Governments will also need to take their share of the blame if they push to build too much in too little space too quickly (though density shouldn't be seen as a problem in itself). That leads to the sorts of problems crap developments cause because it tends to favour big volume builders and speculative developers who have their minds fixed on profit margins. It's impossible to plan a development that will please everyone – full stop. Even supposed crap developments serve a purpose or play a part in meeting government targets or alike. They will always exist, but it wouldn't hurt to learn from mistakes. Over to you, what do you think? What can be done to improve things?

How Wales Works – Planning: Why do crap developments get planning permission?

If you've ever asked the question, "How did that ever get planning permission?" then this is for you.

Word Salad: No Sacrifice & “Piss off, Pacers”

Chinny Reckon: Has Wales received 70 additional powers because of Brexit?

Owen Donovan

Archive

Categories

Copyright

Subscribe by Email

Search