A View from Somerset’s Planning Frontline

When I first joined Somerset Council as a Planning Committee member, some 5 years ago, I knew I was stepping into one of the most complex, contentious, and consequential parts of local government. Planning is where national policy meets local reality. It is where decisions about our countryside, our communities, and our children’s futures play out, often in heated debates in committee rooms, on the doorstep, or (increasingly) on social media.

The late Labour MP Tony Benn is widely attributed with saying that politicians can be divided into two categories: weathervanes and signposts. Weathervane politicians change direction with public opinion or political pressure, whilst signpost politicians stay true to their principles, even when unpopular. There is perhaps no greater test of this than to put a politician on a Planning Committee!

I am what you might call a “cautious YIMBY” (Yes In My Back Yard) but with caveats. My first step on the property ladder was one of those identikit new build houses built on green fields next to a town in South Somerset. It wasn’t perfect and it won’t win any design awards - but it was home and I benefited from the type of faceless modern housing development which is decried by so many. Consequently, I’m not ashamed to be a champion of those needing a home when I sit in Planning Committee meetings. I simply don’t believe in kicking away the ladder now that I’ve climbed up it.

There is an undeniable and urgent need for more homes, especially affordable and social housing. Every time a social housing property becomes available in Somerset, hundreds of applications flood in. Behind every application is a person or family - often living in temporary accommodation, sofa-surfing, or in housing that is damp, overcrowded, or unaffordable. The housing crisis is not an abstract issue - it’s one I see in my inbox every week and hear about when I go knocking on residents’ doors.

But at the same time, I receive just as many emails from residents worried about the scale, design, or location of proposed developments. Concerns about traffic, pressure on services, loss of green fields, or damage to biodiversity.

These two priorities, of delivering homes for people to live in, and protecting the identity of a place, can and must co-exist. But making that happen on the ground - especially within the constraints of a national planning framework is no small feat.

The Role of the Planning Committee

The most common complaint I hear as a local Councillor is that the Planning Authority never listens to them. So, in order to ensure that people do feel listened to I work hard to demystify the planning process for residents. It is not an easy job, and even when planning is explained - some people just want you to object no matter the consequence. However, there are considerable costs to the public purse when Councils make indefensible planning decisions on this basis.

This is now my sixth year on Planning Committee, and I’ve seen 100s of houses refused at committee only to be approved at appeal. This is not a good sign - and Councils face being put into special measures if this happens too often; something that most people don’t realise. If a Council is put into special measures, we don’t receive the income from the planning fees but still have to validate and process applications. Further still, Councillors lose democratic control over where development happens - no more Planning Committees at all.

As loyal Planning in Focus readers already know, Planning Committees are quasi-judicial bodies. That means we must follow policy and evidence, not personal preference or party lines. We cannot just block developments we don’t like the look of, nor can we wave through applications without due scrutiny. We also have to comply with the current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which puts pressure on councils to approve housing to meet top-down targets. It’s a careful, legalistic process - and that can frustrate both developers and residents alike.

The problem for Councillors, however, is that when we make planning decisions at a public committee we do so after a room full of our potential voters has stated their heartfelt objections. Unsurprisingly, it takes a great deal of courage to stand in front of a room full of objectors, people who might deliver leaflets for you, and tell them that the statutory consultees have all recommended approval and that you have no other choice than to approve a planning application.

Indeed, this is one of the most difficult things to do as a local Councillor, even more so if you care about transparency and public engagement. When solar farms were planned in two of the villages I represent, I went knocking on doors to gauge public opinion. I found there were far more people in favour than against, which was contrary to the volume of comments posted on local Facebook groups and on the planning portal.

Public engagement is vital if people are to feel confident that their views are being heard. That’s why I also dedicate a lot of time in my monthly newsletter and on social media explaining to people what I’m doing about a local planning application in an attempt to address local concerns. However, it can be a frustrating process and the accusations of “ignoring the community” and corruption often come in thick and fast. Indeed I have voted against the wishes of objectors in my own back yard, and I’ve had to face the consequences - verbal abuse in committee rooms as well as the usual “brown envelopes” criticism online.

In planning more than almost any other area of Local Government, it is a great deal easier to be a weathervane politician than a signpost. After all, objectors come directly to us whilst supporters don’t. It’s the objectors that send us emails, and they knock on our doors, and ring our phones. So it is far easier to agree with the objectors, to think that they represent the entire community, and then to object with them.

At times I wonder if we use the wrong language when trying to reassure communities - assurances like “safe visibility splays are deliverable” or that “no surface water will discharge onto the highway” or that “a swept path analysis proves safe ingress and egress for refuse vehicles” - this jargon just doesn’t cut through. And that’s without even mentioning 5 Year Housing Land Supply or the “tilted balance in favour of sustainable development” that’s triggered when you fall below 5 years.

But the fact is we need more signpost politicians who will be honest with the public - honest about the need for more housing whilst also being seen to hold developers to account for their duty towards the existing community. It is possible to do this, and developers are in my experience very willing to engage. I’ve secured additional flood attenuation ponds, reduced speed limits, reduced the proposed height and orientation of houses, and more - but it takes a great deal of effort to do this in the face of outright opposition.

Listening to Communities whilst Pointing the Way

As Vice Chair of Somerset Council’s Planning Committee South, one of my most important roles is to listen to the applicant, the residents, the Parish Council, the Housing Officer, Highways, the Conservation Officer, the Ecologist - the list goes on. Planning is rarely black and white. But good decision-making relies on honest debate, local knowledge, and a shared vision of what we want our villages and towns to become.

For me, that vision is of a Somerset where young people can afford to own or rent a home, where housing is a right instead of a luxury. At the same time, politicians like me need to do a better job of explaining to people the positives of development. In my experience on Planning Committee - we tend to focus a great deal on the negatives of development without championing the benefits that come with it. Development rarely comes without improvements being made to local roads or investment in local schools and GP surgeries.

The fact is we live in a press landscape where income is linked to the number of clicks an article gets. That’s why we often see article with headlines like “700 Houses Coming to X Town” instead of “Housing Developer Will Invest £1.5m in Expanding X School” because the latter won’t get any clicks.

In the end, politicians are primarily concerned about their popularity. To be clear - at Planning Committee - Councillors are asked to make objective, quasi-legal decisions based on planning policy, not emotion, and are expected to do this in committee rooms where the number of objectors often outnumbers the number of Councillors. It is an uncomfortable experience, especially when you know you’re going to have to visit the homes of these residents in months and years ahead to ask for their vote.

However, whenever I am in this difficult position I think of the late great Paddy Ashdown who, in A Fortunate Life, wrote 'The dangers of putting your conscience and judgement before your popularity are often far less than we politicians realise. The loss of votes in the short term is often compensated for in the long term by the gain of respect.'

Councillor Oliver Patrick
Liberal Democrat Councillor and Vice Chair of Planning Committee South, Somerset Council