Council must explain its thinking

Walter Markham’s criticisms of PKC planning (PA, September 23) will resonate with many people.

The council has a raft of stated aims and policies, but it is unclear just how it applies those in development management.

It seems that staff are left to decide what to use and how, while adding “policies” of their own.

Differences of opinion between staff and members and among the latter are also often evident at committee meetings.

Since providing some level of certainty as to what will happen is a key role of the planning system this is grossly unsatisfactory.

A plan should not be a kind of “menu” from which members, officers, applicants or objectors can select whichever aims or policies support their opinions, while ignoring those which do not.

Even individual policies can be interpreted in many ways, since no criteria for their use are indicated.

An example is Policy 41 of the Perth Area Plan, the gist of which is that “infill” in housing areas should not “significantly” increase area densities. Since it is not said whether the area is the immediate environs, the street, or a larger unit and just what percentage eg. 5, 15, 25, or more is deemed “significant” this policy can mean anything the council chooses.

In some areas densities have increased by well over 100% through “infill” suggesting the council has not applied the policy at all. It seems to be left to staff to choose whether or not to use it, and if so, how. Yet in the 15 years since the plan was adopted there has been no seemingly no clarification of the matter. Officials should have sought such.

Mr Markham noted that no reference was made to pedestrian and bus accessibility in the report on the monastery land, although providing such is one of the government’s, and the council’s, priorities.

SPPs 3 and 17 and the new “Tactran” transport strategy as well as the development plans state this.

However, a reason offered for refusal was that views of “listed” buildings would be obscured by the proposed development. Yet the Council has no official policy for this matter. Perhaps it is an officers’ (“under the counter”) policy.

Moreover, it is a long established principle that planning consent cannot be refused to maintain views, nor to keep land in its existing condition. One would expect members and staff to know this.

Views of the monastery, and the open field, anyway, could easily be blocked by planting an evergreen hedge on its land close to the road. The council has no power to prevent this. Those who objected because they liked the existing landscape obviously did not realise this.

If councillors, officials and others had a proper understanding of these matters then a great deal of their time and public money would be saved.

The problems are exacerbated by the council’s failure to make clear, what its priorities are.

As with education, housing, recreation, etc planning decisions are “political” as well as “technical” and councils must explain how they interpret national and local policies and what their priorities are.

All proposals for public projects are subject to benefit/cost analyses, to indicate who will pay and who will gain. Development applications should be similarly assessed.

In Brighton, where I am temporarily based, the local council’s stated priorities are to provide much more housing and greatly reduce car use.

Its planning policies reflect this.

Although there are many “conservation areas” and “listed” buildings protection of these comes second to housing provision. Councillors and staff must follow this dictum in making development decisions. It requires them to be creative and imaginative in making recommendations/decisions.

In regard to car use, parking is not required on housing sites, since it is believed such encourages car ownership. A maximum of one stall per home is permitted. There is no parking for most staff at Council HQ.

Most then travel to work by bus, bike, or on foot.

PKC is, according to its website, preparing “supplementary guidance” on reduction of carbon emissions in development. These will focus on reducing energy use by locating, siting and designing buildings in particular ways.

Yet this key concern seems not to be addressed in development management, or by those making comments thereon.

I agree that the council should indicate to intending applicants what matters will be considered in assessing their proposals and ask them to provide statements showing how these will be addressed.

Those offering opinions, whether for or against, should also refer to these.

Many public comments ignore policies, except where these relate to their own interests, and offer no hard evidence to support their views. These are not then useful in making decisions.

Applicants must pay highly to have their proposals decided upon.