Memorandum by The Institution of Economic
Development
This submission has been prepared by the Council
of the Institution of Economic Development (IED). The IED is the
leading professional membership organisation for UK economic development
practitioners. The views contained within this submission are
endorsed by the Council of the IED, on behalf of the IED. The
intention is to represent the views of those involved in the economic
development profession, as other professional organisations represent
the views of their given profession.
A POINT OF
CONCERN
It is unclear whether the ambition for this
inquiry is to evaluate "the skills capacity within local
government to deliver sustainable communities" (Call for
Evidence, 22 Jan 08) or to focus exclusively on planning skills,
as the guidance questions suggest. It could be that this call
for evidence is the first in a series and that future calls from
the same inquiry will explore other professions, such as landscape
architecture. If this is the case, it could have been articulated
more clearly. If this focus on planning skills is the sole element
of an inquiry into the skills capacity within local government
to deliver sustainable communities, then this would be of some
concern; work in this area has unequivocally shown that a cross-disciplinary
team of professionals is required to best deliver this important
objective. Alternatively, it may be that the Committee wishes
to look exclusively at planning skills; if this is the case, it
is disingenuous to badge the inquiry as revisiting the Egan Review,
as its scope is clearly narrower.
Moreover, the Egan Review and, subsequently,
the Lyons Review and the Review of Sub-National Economic Development
and Regeneration (SNR) are in agreement that a buoyant and diverse
economy invariably provides the foundation for sustainable communities.
The Lyons Review and the SNR go further, showing a keenness to
place local government at the heart of place shaping with a new
statutory responsibility. With this in mind, the skills required
by those charged with achieving growth in economically underperforming
areas should be at the fulcrum of any examination of skills shortages.
THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND
PLANNING
The feeling amongst those working in economic
development is that relations between the economic development
and planning professions are currently very good. This is perhaps
in contrast to the past, where the interaction might well have
been characterised by mutual misunderstanding; economic development
departments perceived planning departments to be hindering their
attempts to encourage economic growth, and those in planning felt
that those in economic development were negligently disregarding
good practice in a single minded rush to secure growth on their
patch.
This situation now sees economic development
and planning functions working in a more co-ordinated fashion.
This is perhaps in part due to some cross-fertilisation of the
professions, although this has typically seen planners move across
to work in economic development, rather than vice versa. A new
shared agenda vindicates the notion that the objectives of the
two professions are not necessarily in opposition. Planners have
recognised that schemes that they are keen to implement have a
greater chance of being approved if they are considered to have
a good chance of delivering economic growth, while economic development
officers have recognised that ad-hoc developments rarely maximise
potential investment in the way that those within a strategic
framework can.
THE FUTURE
FRAMEWORK
The planning skills required in local authority
departments will be influenced by the future designation of the
Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) as the lead agency for spatial
planning. Until the future relationship between the RDAs and the
local authorities is more firmly established, it is difficult
to determine exactly who should be in possession of which skills.
The progression of the SNR consultation will be influential in
informing this debate.
This analysis extends to councillors as well
as officers. Currently councillors are most likely to be involved
in this domain through membership of a Development Control Committee
(or equivalent) or a Scrutiny Committee. Under the status quo,
councillors might be required to develop or monitor policy that
will impact upon the local authority of which they are an elected
member. Essentially, the objectives of council officers and elected
members should be conterminous. Under the SNR proposals, councillors
could find themselves serving on a regional committee monitoring
the planning policies set in place by the RDAs. In this scenario,
they would not necessarily be working with officers whose objectives
were conterminous with theirs and their understanding of the principles
and delivery frameworks would be more important.
PRIVATE PROVISION
AND THE
RETENTION OF
TACIT KNOWLEDGE
The questions outlined in this call for evidence
sees the skills challenges facing the planning industry through
the prism of local government. Currently, local authorities are
in a position whereby any skills shortages that they experience
can be overcome through commissioning external consultants who
do possess the required skills. This relationship needs to be
better understood for two principal reasons:
1. Local authorities are not in a position
to control their own destiny. It is rational to expect the market
to provide consultants as long as there is demand for them, but
private sector consultants are exposed to skills shortages in
much the same way as local authorities are. Therefore, expecting
external expertise to be available on "permanent stand-by"
is unrealistic; not only might the private sector be unable to
recruit people with suitable skills, but they also might find
a sector that is more lucrative than local government in which
to work.
2. During the development of a piece of work
it is inevitable that not all of the information that is processed
will be included in a final report. If every piece of work is
commissioned to external organisations, a lot of tacit knowledge
will be retained by the external organisation and not by the commissioner.
This knowledge would be retained, should the organisation have
the capacity to conduct the work in-house.
AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
The original Egan review (ODPM 2004) highlighted
a persistent paradox. Delivering sustainable communities requires
collaboration across a number of agendas, including core public
services such as education and health services. However, combining
the objectives of these agendas should not compromise the overall
quality of their delivery. In other words, people charged with
delivering sustainable communities are required to take a strategic
view of the various policy areas and how they interrelate, while
also possessing considerable expertise. In all of them. This is
unrealistic, and this is acknowledged to some extent in the Egan
review itself. The development of a solution to this challenge
feels like unfinished business, and it is unclear exactly how
it has been tackled since.
The most comprehensive piece of work looking
at this area is Mind the Skills Gap (2007), which was completed
by Arup for the Academy for Sustainable Communities (ASC). A selection
of the most pertinent findings:
— Those organisations seeking to recruit
Planners are expected to face a 27% labour shortage by 2012—the
biggest of all the professional disciplines assessed in the study.
This shortage will be felt most acutely by the public sector,
who anticipates facing a 44% shortage.
— The position of the regions is not
uniform. Of the nine English regions, two were expected to have
a surplus (or at least a reduced deficit) by 2012. These were
Yorkshire & the Humber and the West Midlands.
| 
