Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-149)
MR ROBERT
UPTON AND
MS SUE
PERCY
12 MAY 2008
Q140 Chair: Can you pinpoint any
local authorities that, from your experience, you think do invest
adequately in upgrading the skills of their planning people?
Ms Percy: We have a number of
what we term Learning Partners which are employers of planners,
both public and the private sector, who apply for learned partner
status which is a benchmark of excellence in the professional
development of their staff. We do have a number of those who are
local authorities and that includes, for example, Three Rivers
District Council, Cambridge City Council, London Borough of Merton
and others. That is where they have proper schemes in place which
actually look after the professional development of their staff.
They take it very seriously and they do look to release their
staff so that staff can actually go on courses but not just on
a "just in time" basis where they literally just get
the information, use it, forget about it and move on. These Learning
Partners actually have proper investment in the way their staff
are developed and there are indicators now that for a number of
these Learning Partners there are also retention benefits; it
is not just about up-skilling their staff, it is actually about
recruiting because some students now ask the local authorities
if they are Learning Partners because they are actually very savvy
and they want to know whether they are going to be supported through
their professional lives.
Q141 Chair: Could that information
be made available to us, the evidence that it actually has an
effect on retention or recruitment for that matter?
Ms Percy: We can certainly supply
what we have, although it is early stages.
Mr Upton: Yes, it has been going
for just over a year I think. It is essentially the kitemark which
we grant not just to public sector but to private sector organisations
to show that they have satisfied us that they have made a proper
commitment to developing and supporting their professional staff.
The Planning Inspectorate, for example, was one of the first organisations.
Q142 Mr Olner: We have dealt with
training for professionals, but I find it outstandingly arrogant
that you should be saying that before a local authority member
can sit on a planning committee they should be trained. I say
this as an ex-local authority member, as an ex-chairman of a planning
committee; I just wonder what route you are trying to go down
in saying that before anybody sits on a planning committee they
should receive some formal type of training.
Mr Upton: I am sorry if it strikes
you as arrogant. I do not think it is arrogant, I think it is
concern for their welfare.
Q143 Mr Olner: Or might it be to
put some more money in your pockets because you will be doing
the training?
Mr Upton: No, not necessarily.
Again there are many people out there who are prepared to offer
those services; we do a small amount of it but we are not fighting
for market share. It is for their own protection. As I am sure
you are all well aware, it is very easy these days for local authority
members to get themselves into significant trouble if they are
not well advised and do not have a real understanding of issues
around probity and what they can and cannot do. What we are not
trying to do is to turn them into junior professionals; that is
not the object of the exercise at all, they have professionals
there to advise them. They need to know enough about the environment
and the circumstances and the conditions in which they are working
so that they do not get themselves into trouble or get the authority
into trouble.
Q144 Mr Olner: Most local authority
members I know who sit on planning committees do know that but
they are also there to represent the people who elected them.
I have to say that the planners do not always get it right.
Mr Upton: I agree entirely. As
we say in the submission, there are many, many members of local
authorities who have served on planning committees of one sort
or another over many years who have developed a great expertise;
there is no question about that but they are not born that way.
Also I think there is not a consistency of practice between local
authorities.
Q145 Mr Olner: There is not a consistency
between the advice that is given to councillors from planning
officers either.
Mr Upton: That is also true.
Q146 Mr Hands: Also as a former local
authority member (but I was not distinguished enough to be chairman
of a planning committee), I was slightly surprised when you said
that the issues in your view are much more related to probity
rather than, say, a general knowledge of how the planning system
works. I am sympathetic to a lot of what you are saying, especially
given the quasi-judicial nature of a planning committee, but are
issues of probity really better dealt with by the local authority
in-house rather than compulsory training for councillors? In other
words, we have this whole structure in place of standards, committees
and registrations of interest, how much of the probity side of
things do you think is covered by that and how much do you think
specifically needs training?
Mr Upton: Yes, local planning
committee members will have access to the advice of the borough
solicitor or whoever, but I still think that in their own interests
it is very worthwhile them having some basic induction training
that sets out the basic ground rules so that they understand that.
They need to know, apart from anything else in their early days,
possibly when to ask for advice. We are not talking about a great,
long formal training course; we are saying a basic training. We
acknowledge that a great deal can be done through mutual learning.
It is a good idea, for example, for elected members to take part
in organisations like the Town and Country Planning Summer School
(a separate charity, I hasten to add) which has a very successful
elected members school which gets about 400 elected members each
year. It is really good—I do not say that in any patronising
way—they have really good discussions and they help to develop
each other's skills, knowledge and confidence.
Q147 Mr Hands: I am trying to think
what you are trying to teach the local authority members. Is it
more a kind of a procedural training: how do you deal with an
applicant who approaches you and in what context should you or
should you not meet with the applicant? Or how you should handle
objectors. Is it very nitty-gritty training you are talking about?
Mr Upton: I think it has to do
that but it has to do that in the context of what is this system
and how does it work. If you do not have that context about what
is a section 106 and things like that I think they will find it
harder to relate to issues that an applicant might be raising
which a member needs to be savvy about.
Q148 Mr Olner: My authority changed
political culture at the district elections last Thursday, so
is the new incoming portfolio holder, because he has not done
an accredited course, not able to be that portfolio holder? It
seems to me that you are setting up an obstacle. Nobody minds
training; I have no problem with that at all, in fact I learned
what I know when I was vice-chairman of planning from the chairman
of the planning committee and the office is constantly updated
on changes in planning law. I am just worried that you are starting
to put a little wedge in there that says "without being accredited
and without having been to a training school, you cannot be a
member of a planning committee".
Mr Upton: No, we are not trying
to go there at all. I am sure that the new portfolio holder will
have the most excellent advice from his officers, all of whom
I am sure are members of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I
am arguing that it is in the interests of that portfolio holder
and in the interests of public confidence frankly that at an early
stage they should receive some training.
Q149 Chair: Apart from everything
you have already talked about, one of the points raised by this
inquiry in general is that the nature of planning has changed.
Do you think the member training should also take account of that
so that even people who have been on development control committees
for some time may nevertheless need some sort of upgrade?
Mr Upton: Yes, we tried to make
that point in the memorandum. For a start it is distressing that
the focus is so much on development control. We have talked here
about our attempts to develop good and effective practice in spatial
planning, planning which is focused on good quality outcomes and
the delivery of them. We think that that should be something which
elected members are involved in as well. They should understand
what can be achieved through this. We have examples which we can
use. We say also that we think that one of the critical issues
for the long term is really an issue of leadership. We are always
moving into unchartered territory here and we think that the leaders
of councils and the senior officials should be taking part in
a form of leadership training which looks to see what good spatial
planning which brings together the actual local development framework,
which brings together what will now be the community infrastructure
levy and local area agreements, section 106 or whatever, what
can be achieved for the people through that. Let us all raise
our gaze here and see what we can achieve.
Chair: On that uplifting note, thank
you very much; we will move onto the next set of witnesses.
| 
