CONSULTATION RESPONSE TO THE

SELECT COMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF PLANNING SKILLS

February 2008

 

1. Introduction

 

 

This response is on behalf of the Planning Officers Society. The Planning Officers Society represents the most senior professionals and managers of planning functions in the English local authorities. We set out to:

 

· Act as an advocate and promoter of Local Government planning;

· Assist and advise the Government and the Local Government Association on planning matters and related issues;

· Act as a centre of excellence, undertake research and promote best practice in planning matters;

· Promote all aspects of the built and green environment by working closely with other organisations and professions.

 

The Society's aim is to ensure that planning makes a major contribution to achieving sustainable developments, from national to local level, in ways which are fair and equitable and achieve the social, economic and environmental aspirations of all sectors of the community.

 

The following notes give the perception of chief and senior planning officers, and of consultants who work closely in support of them, gained from the experiences of those officers who are members of the Society's Management Committee and particularly the POS South East Region. It also takes into account work undertaken by consultants who work closely with the Society and with local authorities e.g. carrying out diagnostic evaluations of both the development management service (particularly major applications) and of the Local Development Framework process; undertaking training with both members and officers; and providing a role as critical friend.

 

If requested to present evidence to the select committee, a more comprehensive survey would be undertaken amongst all the Planning Officers Society's membership and more evidence of the problems identified provided. The Egan Report found that it was the lack of generic skills among built environment professionals, rather than their professional and technical skills themselves, that made the difference between successful delivery of plans and failure. The POS agrees with this and with the definition of generic skills defined in Annex D to the Egan report. However, given the rapidly changing

nature of planning there are an increasing range of professional and technical skills that are currently in short supply.

 

This response on the skills required and in short supply in relation to officers should be seen in the context not only of the Egan report but that by ARUP on behalf of the ASC indicating a current and growing shortage as well as the following:

· A substantial change in the scope, nature and role of planning in the last 5 to 10 years - e.g. spatial planning, housing delivery, infrastructure provision and coordination, climate change, links to the SCS, improving accessibility etc. to name but some

· The resource restrictions on local authorities which are hampering authorities' ability to attract the right level and nature of skills as well as securing and retaining enough staff - see CLG reports on Planning Standards Authorities and Planning Delivery Grant.

 

Key recommendations from Egan from the perspective of planning skills which reinforce the above were:

· To make it clear that Local Development Frameworks, informed by the Sustainable Community Strategy, should be key delivery mechanisms for creating sustainable communities.

· The planning system must be reconnected with the central leadership and vision of the local authority

· To develop an effective system of pre-application discussions for very significant development projects.

· To improve and clarify planning processes for all participants, including process mapping and re-engineering, and taking account of the developer's perspective.

· A review of planning targets, to produce a system that reflects the commitment to high quality and timely decision-making for all types of application, including both national and local targets.

· Successful up-skilling of professionals involves changing the behaviour, attitudes and knowledge of everyone involved, encouraging interaction and a holistic approach over the long term.

 

If these are the aspects that officers are dealing with the pressures on members are equally intense. The change in the nature of planning has left many members behind: they do not understand, nor necessarily want to, the new agenda. Member training in most authorities has been very limited and this continues to be a key issue as well as that of resources and willingness.

 

The brief report looks firstly at officers from the perspective of the skills and then the demands. It then considers the issue from a member's perspective and finally reviews briefly mitigation measures.

 

2.
Recent changes to needs

 

In addition to, and as part of, the delivery of sustainable communities, major changes affecting the planning system have been:

 

· the move from development control towards development management, with emphasis on a pro-active approach to achieving sustainable communities, including good design and responding to climate change, and less control over small-scale development

· introduction of, and development of good practice in, Local Development Frameworks, with an emphasis on spatial planning, community and stakeholder engagement and robust evidence to ensure soundness, including a more rigorous approach to housing land availability, housing market assessment, the supply and demand of employment land and the implementation of plans

· An acceleration of the impetus for delivery of development, particularly for housing, with the publication of PPS3, Growth Point and eco-town initiatives and early reforms to the LDF system.

 

These have led to an increased need for skills and knowledge in the following, mainly generic, areas:

 

1. Project management in order to deliver a more complex development plan system in line with the Local Development Scheme and in order to manage the processing of major applications from pre-application stages to approval in line with government targets for speed of decision

2. Process and change management in order to introduce new systems and time-consuming processes into already over-stretched departments with limited, if any, additional resources and these (such as PDG or planning fees) only available on a short term basis and not predictable for budget purposes

3. Resource planning, of both the staff and finances, required to deliver LDF documents, master-plans and major development schemes and the justification of a different level of resourcing that that required in the past - undertaking for example activity based or zero based budgeting

4. Management of contracts and consultants in order to maximise the use of external support for both DM and LDF work which has grown significantly with the need to implement e-planning and evidence based planning

5. Partnership/ team working in order to develop LDFs corporately, within local authorities and increasingly jointly with adjoining authorities, and other public and private agencies, and to bring forward schemes which deliver the objectives on all sides, including working with Local Strategic Partnerships, mediation between different demands for "planning gain" and working on Planning Performance Agreements. This may include using existing partnerships and teams or developing complex new ones.

6. Development finance, for instance in order to understand and critically evaluate arguments about the viability of schemes either being proposed in planning applications, of sites which form part of Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments or of claims in sequential tests that sites are not viable.

7. Community engagement and stakeholder management in order to assist local residents to articulate how they want their area to develop, while helping them to understand the wider policy requirements and their potential impact on their local environment: this often means dealing with highly controversial issues in public with communities who do not accept the Government's agenda e.g. housing development

8. Collaborative visioning - working with stakeholders to develop locally distinctive visions for a district, local area or individual site - a completely new area for many participants

9. Master-planning and urban design - developing the vision into a more tangible framework and/ or responding to schemes submitted

10. Database design, maintenance and monitoring in order to produce Annual Monitoring Statements and to have evidence to support LDF Core Strategies and Allocations documents: includes ensuring that databases and monitoring is consistent across and within local authority boundaries and requires an understanding of the potential and complexities of the whole e-planning agenda.

11. Administrative and organisational support including administering consultation exercises and databases, arranging events and ensuring the recording of evidence and audit trails as well as operating the new validation requirements

12. Infrastructure planning - working with statutory undertakers and developers to ensure that the appropriate physical and community infrastructure provision is identified at an early stage and that mechanisms are put in place to ensure its delivery at the appropriate time. Key areas are transport, sewage treatment, water supply, flood mitigation, renewable energy, education, health services, local shopping and other community buildings: these are complicated by the growing level of knowledge by specialists as to the opportunities for e.g. sustainable accessibility, sustainable construction, behavioural change requirements etc.

13. Implementation, including CPOs, overcoming constraints etc., coordinating delivery to time of a wide variety of agencies in both the public and private sector

14. Policy development- taking the aspirations and objectives from Issues and Options and Preferred Options reports and translating them into clear, precise but concise and understandable policies for Core Strategies and other DPDs then ensuring their ownership and implementation

15. Sustainability Appraisal - a growth area for consultants, many local authorities have benefited from the iterative process which can better be achieved with an in-house resource, and can justify this cost in terms of a more locally distinctive output and economies over a large range of EA type work, both for DC and LDFs.

16. Other specialist skills- depending on local circumstances, it may be more cost effective to develop in-house expertise in some areas which have traditionally gone to consultants, such a retail planning, or where reliance has previously been placed on a county level resource which is no longer available for economic or reorganisation reasons, e.g. conservation or ecology. These aspects are covered in more detail below.

 

3. Areas where lack of skills is most pronounced

 

As recognised by the Egan report, there are broadly two types of skill gap which need to be filled:

· technical and professional knowledge of and expertise in new areas of work such as technologies required to deliver carbon free development, or the computer skills to establish complicated databases and monitoring systems as well as those highlighted above

· the generic and softer skills required, for instance, to engage with the community in order to articulate their vision, seek compromise solutions which maximise achievement of objectives, develop innovative but practical policy approaches and wording, make sensible judgements about the suitability and achievability of sites based on experience as well as analysis, and motivate teams to meet deadlines

 

Technical /professional skills

 

The following areas are those where local planning authorities struggle to provide a service at all, or are reliant on expensive consultancy advice and so may benefit from in-house expertise (which could in many cases be shared between authorities):

· Strategic planning at sub-regional/regional level

· Spatial planning and vision/objective led planning

· Developing project and programme management plans for LDF implementation and development management

· Conservation area appraisal

· Urban design guidance and advice

· Sustainability Appraisal

· Retail expenditure forecasts and impact assessment

· Sustainable transport assessment and travel planning

· Development finance and viability assessment

· Infrastructure planning and coordination

· Master-planning

· Database design, maintenance and monitoring

· IT skills for e-planning

 

Generic skills

 

Many of these generic skills are in the Egan report and are listed above, but the key areas which appear to be lacking in the light of the recent experience with LDFs and development management are:

· Project management

· Partnership/ team working

· Collaborative visioning

· Resource planning

· Community engagement

· Process and change management

· Management of contracts and consultants

· Negotiation and facilitation of collaborative working

· Administrative and technical support to LDF teams

· Developing trust and ownership

· Communicating difficult messages

· Community engagement as distinct from consultation

 

A number of the skills required and which are in short supply would benefit for more explanation.

 

Consultation, engagement and public relations skills

 

The Government's new agenda for planning (increased house-building, greater emphasis on the needs of the economy, etc.) is going to involve some difficult and potentially controversial decisions, particularly in the more economically-favoured parts of the country like the South East, where the pressures on infrastructure and the quality of life are greatest. The implementation of these decisions will be considerably more difficult, if the Government and the planning authorities do not have the "hearts and minds" backing of the communities concerned. To date, neither of them has been conspicuously successful in winning the public over. One of the most important skills gaps for planning may therefore be the development of new skills in engaging with, and winning the support of, the communities they serve for the new agenda.

 

One of the key problems they face with this is that the groups who engage most with local government and the planning process tend to be those older, more settled households who are less likely to benefit from the new agenda and more likely to be sensitive to its negative impacts. The main beneficiaries (and therefore more likely supporters) of the new agenda, the younger age groups, are much less likely to be actively involved in the planning process. An important priority for local government planning should therefore be to find new ways of engaging with these groups and securing their understanding of, and support for, the new agenda.

 

Strategic Planning

 

If the Government is looking for an increase in sub-regional planning activity, this is likely to highlight shortages of strategic planning skills. The abolition of the structure plan tier in 2004 left county councils with no clearly-defined strategic planning role, and led to substantial numbers of strategic planners leaving (either their jobs, or the profession entirely) and the authorities concerned not replacing them. At the same time, Regional Assemblies tended not to be resourced to deliver the full strategic planning agenda independently, and remained heavily dependent upon their constituent local authorities for delivery. The extended period of uncertainty over strategic planning responsibilities that is likely to result from the current Sub-National Review can only exacerbate this problem. At the same time, such indications as we have seen suggest that the new Regional Development Agency bodies will be even less resourced for their planning function and will be looking to push more of it down to the local authority/sub-regional level. The net result is likely to be a shortage of strategic planning skills. The resolution of this depends not just upon training, but also on ensuring that there is a clear role and secure career path to encourage planners to enter this part of the profession.

 

The need for evidence and the impact on skills

 

Part of the problem currently being experienced by local authorities in relation to skills availability is being driven by the Government's requirement for a comprehensive evidence base for planning. Whilst the Society welcomes the principle of a sound evidence base, we believe the time has come to take overall stock of the scale and detail of evidence now required, the skills involved in gathering it and how it is being used. In the Society's response to draft PPS4 we set out some examples of what is now required. That list is reproduced below:

 

Examples of evidence requirements

 

PPS3 para. 11 and Annex C: Strategic Housing Market Assessments

PPS3 para. 11 and Annex C: Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments

PPS3 para. 29: Assessments of the economic viability of thresholds and proportions of affordable housing, including the impact on housing delivery and mixed communities

PPS6 para. 2.32-2.33: Retail and Leisure Needs assessments

PPS7 para. 24: Landscape Character Assessments

PPS1 para. 27:refers also to Townscape Character

PPS25 para. 6 and Annex E E5:  Strategic Flood Risk Assessments

ODPM Guidance Note Dec 2004: Employment Land Reviews.

Draft PPS4: para 18: A wide range of measures to monitor the local economy

Other components of the evidence base mentioned by our members include those in PPG17, PPS9 (Appropriate Assessment), the Habitat Regulations, Sustainability Assessments, Strategic Environmental Assessments and Statements of Community Involvement.

 

These now represent a substantial cost and workload for both planning authorities and other key players in the planning system, and we need to satisfy ourselves that the requirements (in terms of both the range of information, the level of detail required and the skills that are required to collect and evaluate the information) are in every case proportional to the value they add to the planning process. We have suggested that case studies might be used to see how the evidence that is being gathered is being used and the extent to which it is influencing the outcomes from the planning process. This may suggest a need, either for changes to the evidence base, or to planning processes, to allow greater regard to be had to the evidence base. Such a process would help to inform your view of the skills gaps and their relative priority. These are three examples, as illustrations of parts of the evidence base, that it is suggested might warrant closer scrutiny:

 

1. Sustainability appraisal: This requires local authority officers to acquire new skills in what some see as a rather undeveloped and unscientific methodology. Members report that vast amounts of information are being gathered, but that little or no reference appears to be made to it when the strategy is examined, other than to establish that the procedural box of its completion has been ticked;

2. Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment: Whilst our members understand and support the principle behind this part of the evidence base, it is felt that some of the detail required (and the demands on the skills needed to supply it) is excessive. In particular, paragraphs 39-41 of the guidance talk of carrying out residual valuations of sites to establish their viability. Whilst this may be possible with a small number of large sites, it would be quite impracticable for those many authorities whose land supply is made up of a host of small sites. Nonetheless, appellants at some S78 appeals - encouraged by this setting of standards - are now apparently trawling through sites in this level of minute detail;

3. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment: Local authorities, either individually or in small groups, are now expected to acquire - or buy in - the skills needed to carry out these assessments over relatively local areas. The assessments largely use data held by the Environment Agency, who also effectively sign off the studies. A far more efficient use of resources - and skills - could be had by the Environment Agency being resourced directly to carry out properly strategic flood risk assessments, which individual planning authorities could then pick up in a completed form and use to inform their plans.

 

4. The skills required by other participants in planning

 

Apart from the above, given the demand for new housing provision and the need to create sustainable communities there is a substantial increase in the need for infrastructure planning. This is a completely new field for many planners and local authorities. Infrastructure planning is going to play an increasingly important role in the spatial planning of the future, and it will be important for planners to understand the processes, constraints and priorities of those who deliver different parts of the infrastructure, including the working of their regulatory bodies. They will need to know how and when to intervene in the infrastructure planning process for maximum effect. But the need for such understanding cuts both ways. If infrastructure provision is to be much more central to planning, then the infrastructure providers also need to have a much better appreciation of the purposes and processes of the spatial planning system.

 

This is particularly true if the utility providers are going to be looking to the Community Infrastructure Levy for funding. At present, the understanding of planning by utilities staff may be described as variable; one might encounter, at one extreme, a "gung ho" approach to the delivery of services that says "whatever you need, where and whenever you need it, we can deliver it" (an understandable position to take where it is a statutory duty for them to do so, but possibly not very indicative of the realism of such a promise). At the other, there can be an approach that says that discussion of such matters is commercially confidential, and thus out of bounds to the planning authorities.

 

More generally, we suggest that any discussion of the skills needed for planning should not be restricted to those needed by planners themselves. It should look at the skills needed by all the key players, and in particular those who find themselves with an increasing role in the Government's new planning agenda. For example, with the needs of the economy rising up the planning agenda (draft PPS4, Sub-National Review) it is important that economic development officers and others representing the business community develop their skills as participants in planning. Traditionally, the business community has often been less than effective in representing itself in the planning process (perhaps understandably, given the very different timescales to which planning and business are accustomed to working).

 

More generally, the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy seems likely to open up the planning system to more active participation by significant groups of new players, such as the health authorities, emergency services and Government agencies. There is some evidence of a shortage of infrastructure planning skills across these bodies as well as in the planning profession - for example paragraph 3.1.3 of the study, commissioned from Buchannan's by Buckinghamshire County Council in relation to the expansion of Aylesbury Vale as part of the Milton Keynes area of growth (published January 2008):

 

"3.1.3 ...planning for the level of growth proposed at Aylesbury, and over such a long time period, is a challenge that the majority of service providers have little or no experience of and are at present ill-equipped to meet. This is not surprising given the short-term nature of mainstream funding cycles and the lack of direct involvement of many service providers with the spatial planning process."

 

Given that the demands for infrastructure are likely to far exceed what development can bear, the local authorities' planners, in turn, are likely to need access to a range of skilled and independent technical advice on a range of matters (such as travel planning, traffic modelling and transport engineering) if they are to be able properly to evaluate and prioritise the competing demands for resources. These various skills shortages are likely to result in increased competition for the same limited pool of infrastructure and related planners.

 

In addition to the question of how far these new participant bodies need to be equipped with the necessary skills set, and how it should be approached, the Committee might also want to consider whether the problem can be approached in other ways - for example, whether the planning system itself might evolve, to reduce the level of skills needed for other participants to play an effective role in it. Straightforward things like the simplification of processes and the removal of confusing jargon could do much to de-mystify, and facilitate participation in, the system.

 

There is one aspect of infrastructure planning where there may be a more fundamental skills gap; this is the area of demand management. Increasingly, with things like water consumption, waste management and the use of cars, the Government is looking to reduce demand, rather than build new infrastructure. To judge from such recent examples as the South East Plan Public Examination, the planning issues associated with it are a "black hole" to most participants. A possible agenda for the development of a skills syllabus in this area, could be based on the following extract from evidence given by the Berkshire Joint Strategic Planning Unit to the South East Plan Examination:

 

"How much demand management is required? It should be possible to work out broadly how much unfettered growth in demand there might be over the Plan period (for example, in water consumption or car use) and how much additional capacity any proposed new infrastructure will give us. The balance would be the contribution required from demand management and behavioural change;

Has this level been achieved elsewhere? The Lords' Committee investigating the water industry was able to gather valuable information, from Australia and elsewhere, about successful changes in behaviour in relation to water use. Where this is available, we are able to ask whether that experience would translate directly into our own context, or whether differences between the two might affect the outcome. Where change on this scale has not been achieved elsewhere, we believe there is at least a prima facie case for asking (without pre-judging the matter in either direction) whether the targets being set are realistic;

Whose job would it be to achieve those changes, and are they committed to doing so? In the case of water, this would seem to rest primarily with the water companies and their regulator, OFWAT. On the basis of the evidence we have submitted on matter 1E, we have doubts as to whether either of these parties is sufficiently committed to demand management, and whether the institutional structure of the water industry lends itself to such a radically different approach. Similarly, with regard to transport, it is far from clear that either Network Rail, the train operators or the Highways Agency are signed up to serving the transport demand that would be generated by the Government's housing growth agenda. If this analysis is correct, one of the first priorities should be for the Government to revisit their rules of engagement and see whether changes are needed to them, to get those organisations signed up. In this event, the inquiry should send Government a clear signal about the need to do so;

What policy instruments do they have to achieve those changes, and what are their resource implications? Behavioural change is not a cost-free option. For example, the retro-fitting of water-saving devices to the existing housing stock has a price, as does the investment in public transport needed to give it the attractiveness and capacity to make a modal shift possible. The promotional costs alone of encouraging a significant change in behaviour are likely to be substantial. Where demand management/behavioural change forms part of the equation, it should be possible at this stage at least to identify the policy instruments by which the responsible organisations will achieve it, and to say where these will have cost implications (even if it is not possible to quantify them at this stage, it should be one of the future jobs of the evolving implementation plan to do so). If the policy instruments for change cannot be identified, there is again a prima facie case for questioning the realism of this as an approach;

What factors are working against such a policy? It has to be recognised that many of the behavioural changes the Plan is seeking go directly against the grain of what most of the public instinctively want (unlimited use of their cars, increased water consumption, etc.) In some cases, these desires are underpinned by some very strong commercial pressures (such as the £billion or so the motor industry spends each year to promote the sale of their products - but also, by inference, the desirability of motoring generally). One final test of the realism of a policy of behavioural change should therefore be to identify these countervailing forces, assess what their likely impact is and what, if anything, can or should be done to address them. This would inform your view as to whether the package of infrastructure measures to support growth is sound and evidence-based".

 

The proposed introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy has thrown a spotlight on questions of economic viability, and the ability of planners in conjunction with other key participants to set levels of CIL that maximise the income generated, whilst not rendering development unviable. This may be a skill that is in short supply within the planning profession and beyond given the need to agree the CIL and project requirements. Unlike Section 106, CIL involves setting one, or at most a few rates for the local authority area, rather than looking at each site on an individual basis. The intention of CIL, it is understood, should not be set at such a high level that it is hard up against the margins of viability for a typical scheme. There should be some headroom built into it to allow for changes in market conditions without constantly needing to change the rate of CIL. This may suggest that absolute precision in setting the CIL rate may not be quite so essential but this will need to be considered against the total cost of the required infrastructure. This requirement will demand skills from all those engaged in assessing and costing requirements.

 

CIL will only ever pay part of the cost of the infrastructure required to support development, and it will be someone's (presumably the planners') responsibility to make sure that the full cost of it is met at the appropriate time. Planners will need to understand how any deficit in funding can be covered, and be adept at bringing these resources together: this will be extremely demanding and require substantial negotiation as well as other skills.

 

5. De-skilling is also underway to some extent

 

The skills problem may not just relate to the demand for new skills within the profession. One issue the Committee might like to consider is the extent to which a target-driven culture within planning has led to a de-skilling of development control and other staff. Taking development control first, in order to meet targets for processing applications within set timescales, the attitude is often now taken that "if an application is not bad enough to refuse, it should be permitted". Previously, there would have been scope for negotiation to improve the scheme. Today, such resources as are available for such negotiations tend to be reserved for the larger developments. However, by the time staff reach a point where they are allowed to take on such schemes, they should have developed core skills in such matters as negotiation and design through experience in dealing with smaller developments: in many cases this is not now happening. In addition to the impact this has on the quality of developments, it also affects the job satisfaction of junior development control staff and consequently the ability of local planning authorities to attract and retain staff (which itself exacerbates skills shortages).

 

Related to this is the de-skilling that has resulted from local planning authorities making increasing use of non-qualified staff to undertake basic development control and other work hitherto done by qualified planners. This is driven by a combination of budgetary constraints, shortages of qualified staff and the target-led, and sometimes mechanistic approach, to development control described above. If this process is to be accepted as a permanent part of planning, it may be that consideration should be given to the training needs of unqualified staff performing these roles and how junior planners will gain experience.

 

It is appreciated that there are proposed changes to the GDPO which are likely to affect the volume and nature of the household and minor applications that authorities receive. The Society is not convinced that this proposal will have the benefits currently being assumed by Government but it will affect the way that junior staff are trained. Any capacity released by this process will however not provide the skilled staff needed as set out above, or at least not in the short term. In addition given that most authorities are under-resourced across the service (as evidenced by the Planning Standards and diagnostic work) it will not provide the additional staff needed to fulfil the current demands.

 

6. Councillors training

 

Egan recommended against compulsory training for members unless voluntary training does not work. There is some evidence that members either do not attend such training or fail to take on board what is offered. There may however be a case for re-considering this given the magnitude of the changes taking place in planning currently and the essential requirement that members understand the new planning regime and are able to play an active part in it.

 

Training so far and until recently has tended to concentrate on development control and has been for planning committees. It is now more important that training is made available to cabinet members and portfolio holders and to those members that sit on advisory boards developing LDFs, where these exist. However all members need to understand the new planning regime given the roles they need to play in the LDF process as well as development management. The IDeA and PAS have been undertaking some member training around these issues but it is clear from the LDF and DM diagnostic evaluations that are carried out that there are substantial gaps in members level of understanding and that it is extremely hard to get many to attend training sessions. Without members improving their knowledge and skills the planning process is likely to be unable to deliver the substantial agenda it has been set notwithstanding any officer training/skills development programme.

 

7. Mitigation measures

 

Apart from a reconsideration of the scale and nature of the evidence base required whilst retaining the principle, and ensuring that others are up-skilled as well as planners other mitigation measures could be considered. These include seeing how far the gaps in technical skills can be met by attracting and training some of the best graduates coming out of university, not always from planning schools, but instead from related fields such as geography and environmental science. Many local planning authorities are also pursuing a strategy of "growing their own" staff who may have come from university or may have worked their way up from administrative roles. This can be effective in the long-term because of ties and commitment to the local area but will not meet the urgent short term need for experienced staff. It may be possible for some people to be attracted into planning fields from other disciplines at a more senior level if faster conversion courses could be organised and pay levels adjusted - as happened with the teaching profession.

 

The softer, generic skills are more difficult to find and require a level of experience which is often not available in planning departments. In the longer term the measures included in the Egan report address this issue. In the short term, more could be done to establish registers of consultants or part-time planners (e.g. retired or bringing up children) who have the required experience, firstly by identifying such people and secondly by removing any obstacles to their involvement. On the latter, much has been done to encourage married women with young children to stay or come back (flexible working hours, job sharing etc.) but more could be done to help retired people (for instance advice on pension impacts, relaxation of IR 35 requirements etc.).