If it smells rotten, it usually is rotten

“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” Hamlet Act 1

Those of a certain age (and I for my part can only just remember watching the news with my grandmother) will no doubt recall the story of John Poulson, George Pottinger and T Dan Smith.

This was, at the time, a major corruption scandal reaching even into the Shadow Cabinet. But it was 40 years ago and really does seem to come from, and reflect, an alien view of the world seen through the lens of black and white television.

Although considered sufficiently worthy of statutory intervention in the form of the Bribery Act 2010, full blown bribery and corruption is probably very rare in this country nowadays (at least in local government circles).

And of course the British view corruption as something which goes on elsewhere, in foreign lands, practised by foreigners where kickbacks, dessous-de-table, mordida, baksheesh, spintarella, fakelaki and schmiergeld are common place and designed to disadvantage British business.

But in the world of planning there is, and in my experience always has been, a shady underbelly of corruption in its many different forms. These exist in varying degrees from the invidious peddling of supposed influence, through doing deals in smoke filled rooms or on quiet out-of-the-way golf courses, to the looking of the other way and, presumably on the very odd occasion, to the payment of monies and provision of gifts and lavish hospitality.

The Daily Telegraph has been investigating the way in which the planning system works and has recently produced a number of stories regarding sharp practice in the way that local planning authority Members and Officers conduct themselves.

Examples can be found at:

• Moonlighting planning officers help builders exploit 'vulnerable’ councils
• Councillors for hire: how it works
• Councillor explains 'tricks of the trade' for planning approval
• Planning investigation: 'we’d say cut down trees before they object’
• 'If I can’t get planning, nobody will' says Devon councillor and planning consultant
• Planning consultancy admits hiring senior public sector officials

This of course is in part based on concern associated with the impending implementation of the NPPF ‘presumption in favour of development’ where there is no up-to-date and compliant local plan.

The potential problem is highlighted in the Planning Magazine’s Interactive Map and Core strategy progress data which demonstrates the frankly poor state of plan readiness across England based on Planning Inspectorate figures.

Now there are some, not least of which is Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, who are reported as questioning whether criminal offences have been committed and calling for local councils to tighten their ethics codes and act against anyone who may have done anything illegal (see Planning investigation: you may have broken law, councillors told).  

Others have called for restrictions on such activities (see Ban councillors from making money from planning system in their area, Labour's Hilary Benn tells Eric Pickles).

This is of course all rather ironic given the recent abolition of the Standards Board set up in light of the Committee for Standards in Public Life, which became known as the Nolan Committee.

The Nolan Committee came up with seven ‘principles of public life’ which became accepted standards against which to judge the behaviour of local and national politicians. One dealt with ‘integrity’ and stated that ‘holders of public office should not places themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.’

Given this particular Government’s planning reforms I suspect that we are going to see raised public concern about whether the planning system is fit for purpose. There are serious questions about whether the current standards regime is sufficient to ensure public confidence in the operation of the planning system and at the very least these principles needs to be reasserted.

But is that enough?

In my view the system needs to be tightened up. Planning officers are both employees (who can be prevented by contractual terms from ‘moonlighting’) and, where members of the RTPI, subject to professional conduct obligations.

All members of the RTPI are bound by a Code of Professional Conduct which applies to all of their professional activities. It is the purpose of this Code to ensure that in all their professional activities members of the Royal Town Planning Institute:

“(a)      shall act with competence, honesty and integrity;

(b)       shall fearlessly and impartially exercise their independent professional judgement to the best of their skill and understanding;

(c)       shall discharge their duty to their employers, clients, colleagues and others with due care and diligence in accordance with the provisions of this Code;

(d)       shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation, creed, religion, disability or age and shall seek to eliminate such discrimination by others and to promote equality of opportunity;

(e)       shall not bring the profession or the Royal Town Planning Institute into disrepute.”

Presumably the RTPI will not hesitate to act against any of its members in breach of their professional obligations.

Those whose business interests’ conflict with local planning authorities’ functions should be precluded from election to those bodies. This could for example be analogous to the way in which political restrictions on local government employees were addressed in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. For a helpful explanation of this process see here.  

But this provision would require primary legislation and a Government committed to probity and integrity rather than a dash for growth at pretty much any cost. These restrictions would also need to be strictly enforced in order to ensure public confidence in the planning system. I wonder whether we have the appetite for that.