Investigating any increase in Consultants Required for PP

[Ferdinand]

I am of the view that there seems to have been an increase in the number of consultant reports required by self-builders (and developers, but that is not the topic here) over the last 20 years. 

 

My view is that this is in part down to Councils playing safe because it is more attractive to demand a report anyway when somebody else pays the expense, rather than the scarier prospect of not insisting on one. However, that is anecdotal. My suspicion is that we are in a position where a dynamic exists where some bodies want more reports to grow their businesses, in addition to protect whatever they say they are trying to protect.

 

But I need to begin to get a handle on some evidence.

 

I am trying to frame an FOI request to get data from a typical authority about 2 sample periods (perhaps Sep-Oct 2018, and Sep-Oct 2006), to get a snapshot sample. I think a more-complete request would be too much expenditure to get through, and to be justifiable as a load to place on Council Staff.

 

Question 1: Does anyone have or know of any data on this?

 

Question 2: Where is the definitive list of statutory, and hopefully non-statutory, consultees?

 

Any comments are most welcome.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Big Neil]

Do you mean things like Archaeological surveys, nesting bird surveys etc?

[Ferdinand]

15 minutes ago, Big Neil said:

Do you mean things like Archaeological surveys, nesting bird surveys etc?

 

Plus all the rest.

[jamieled]

48 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 My suspicion is that we are in a position where a dynamic exists where some bodies want more reports to grow their businesses, in addition to protect whatever they say they are trying to protect.

 

 

I will be coming at this from a bit of a biased viewpoint, as I undertake some work on developments (but not for self-build). An alternative explanation to the one you provide would be that certain consultees have consistently had budgets and manpower reduced. Coupled with a reduced technical capability, the onus is now put on the developer to prove there is not a problem, rather than authorities thinking about it for themselves. This has undoubtedly (partly)  led to the growth in consultants.

 

I'm not ware of any other data sources. While you may have already considered this, a simple snapshot between two periods will need considered carefully. For example, if you just look at self builds, how much of the additional work now required is down to the nature of the plots available versus a change in actual standards?

[Big Neil]

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

18 minutes ago, Big Neil said:

Do you mean things like Archaeological surveys, nesting bird surveys etc?

 

Plus all the rest.

righteeeo. It has occurred to me for some time that in respect of the archaeological end of things, many councils would have historical data covering the area, from previous applications and studies, negating the need for new ones. Was this the kind of basis for your interest? If so I'm working on something at the moment (fairly long term) which looks at that particular question for a very small sample area. If you think my figures would be of any general use , i'm happy to share themn once they are finished.

[Ferdinand]

8 minutes ago, jamieled said:

 

I will be coming at this from a bit of a biased viewpoint, as I undertake some work on developments (but not for self-build). An alternative explanation to the one you provide would be that certain consultees have consistently had budgets and manpower reduced. Coupled with a reduced technical capability, the onus is now put on the developer to prove there is not a problem, rather than authorities thinking about it for themselves. This has undoubtedly (partly)  led to the growth in consultants.

 

I'm not ware of any other data sources. While you may have already considered this, a simple snapshot between two periods will need considered carefully. For example, if you just look at self builds, how much of the additional work now required is down to the nature of the plots available versus a change in actual standards?

 

Absoluely agree, but an evaluation has to start somewhere, and where a public critique can be made from all sides.

 

It would really want two entire years for all councils in the country, peer reviewed and done to take out sample bias and other factors .. but that is then in pro-research project territory.

 

We all have our viewpoints .. mine is significantly based on observing what seem to be questionable institutional networks of relationships which seem to involve manifest conflicts of interest. Plus anecdotal accounts from long term professionals etc.

 

Ferdinand

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

27 minutes ago, Big Neil said:

righteeeo. It has occurred to me for some time that in respect of the archaeological end of things, many councils would have historical data covering the area, from previous applications and studies, negating the need for new ones. Was this the kind of basis for your interest? If so I'm working on something at the moment (fairly long term) which looks at that particular question for a very small sample area. If you think my figures would be of any general use , i'm happy to share themn once they are finished.

 

My interest is whether cost overheads .. especially those imposed in advance .. mitigate against developement, and ar a drag on eg small development firms and small plots of land, and whether the balance is right. I also wonder whether there are extraneous reasons as to why the overhead is quite so high for self-build and small developments.

 

We all have war stories or lack of war stories, but I am interested in finding some data.

 

Reading campaign material eg from the CPRE there is a lot of questionable information out there. 

 

Ferdinand

Edited March 20, 2019 by Ferdinand

[AliMcLeod]

I wonder how many of these companies that produce reports are run by ex-council planning staff who still know people who work for the planning departments...

[Moonshine]

1 hour ago, jamieled said:

An alternative explanation to the one you provide would be that certain consultees have consistently had budgets and manpower reduced. Coupled with a reduced technical capability, the onus is now put on the developer to prove there is not a problem, rather than authorities thinking about it for themselves. This has undoubtedly (partly)  led to the growth in consultants.

 

much of the additional work now required is down to the nature of the plots available versus a change in actual standards?

 

As a 'consultant' i agree with these points, and in my own field land is getting more constrained and potential impacts are more prevalent, but also that i am of the opinion its always been a developer that has to prove to the council what the impacts of the development being applied for are.