!

Waltham Forest Asian Mothers Group

Planning Focus Group Report (held on 7th December 2011)

WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011

Table of Contents
Introduction to Focus Group!
Participants! Methodology! Understanding of planning system amongst participants!

3
3 3 4

Issues raised!
Process! Communication & Transparency! Enforcement Ofcers! Lawful Development Certicates! Appeal Process! Other Issues raised!

5
5 6 8 8 9 10

Suggestions!

11

WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011

Introduction to Focus Group

On Wednesday, 7th of December 2011, the Waltham Forest Asian Mothers Group (WFAMG), held a focus group with participants from the Asian community, to discuss issues related to the planning system in the London Borough of Waltham Forest (LBWF). The aim was to gauge the level of engagement with the planning system within the Asian community of LBWF, as well as identify ways in which this could be improved. This report outlines the ndings of the focus group; namely, the main issues participants identied regarding their experience of the planning system, as well as their suggestions of how the service could be improved to deliver better results for the community and LBWF. Participants 2 women and 18 men from the Asian community resident or working primarily in LBWF, including: those that had applied for planning permission previously, those that were considering an application, as well as local property developers, builders and agents. Methodology The focus group was conducted in two one-hour sessions; the rst was semi-structured with questions (as listed below), with the second open for participants to raise other issues. The discussion concluded with each participant asked to suggest specic and practicable improvements to the planning system in LBWF, in order to increase the Asian communitys engagement with the planning process.

WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011

Questions asked: 1. Why do you think we need a planning system? 2. Do you know how to contact the planning department? 3. If you wanted to alter your property, what steps would you take? 4. Do you know what to do if you dont agree with a planning decision? 5. Do you know what a Lawful Development Certificate is? (Is it a good idea?) 6. Your suggestions for improving the planning system? 7. Any other comments? Understanding of planning system amongst participants Participants clearly understood and supported the need for a system of development control. Their comments included: 1. 2. 3. 4. People live in a community and have obligations towards one another People cannot just do what they like in terms of building development. We need a system to maintain a good quality of life in the community Everyone should be subject to the same rules.

WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011

Issues raised
Process Participants general comments included: 1. The planning system is complex, with inconsistent outcomes. 2. There is a lack of transparency with regards to decision making in considering applications. 3. Support and guidance available to the general public when considering changes to property, (both prior to and during the planning permission process), was not proportionate to the severity of the enforcement process. Participants highlighted specic areas as: 1. The LBWF eight-week timeframe for processing planning applications is not observed consistently. 2. Planning ofcers do not meet their own statutory deadlines, yet applicants are swiftly penalised by enforcement ofcers for failing to meet deadlines set, even at short notice; participants felt angry about these double standards

WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011

3.

Participants gave examples of when their planning applications had been registered four weeks after the original submission date by the applicant, only after which the eight-week processing time began. Furthermore, applicants gave clear examples of instances when they had only been contacted only a few days before the deadline concerning issues with their planning application; therefore , giving insufcient time for participants to enact the necessary changes, leading to the refusal of planning permission and subsequently the need for resubmission. Many participants were frustrated by this practice and felt it was a deliberate delaying tactic to refuse, rather than accept the application. It was noted that professional agents were in a position to have sufcient resources at their disposal to make the necessary requested changes, but that this was extremely difcult to match for the average applicant.

Communication & Transparency Participants spoke at length about the lack of transparency, good quality information, reliable guidance and very poor communication when dealing with LBWF regarding planning applications and issues. Participants specically highlighted: 1. An acute lack of communication during the process, exacerbated by the fact that no direct telephone contact details are given on letters sent out to applicants. Whilst letters may come from a named person, there is no way of directly contacting the named person to discuss the outcome of the application; participants articulated a clear desire for direct telephone numbers of the person managing their application to be provided on all correspondence.
WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011 6

2. Participants stated that they would like to have the reasons for the decision explained to them clearly, in plain English, (especially in the instance of a refusal), rather than in convoluted technical jargon incomprehensible to the average applicant. 3. There was a consensus that there was a lack of clear guidance around development controls for members of the public; participants felt that LBWF were not clear in communicating the rules as to what is, or is not, permitted. 4. Participants commented on the inconsistent information given to applicants when communicating with LBWF. Applicants were unclear as to which stage of the process their planning permission applications had reached at any given time; giving detailed instances of receiving conicting information from different members of staff from the same department, during their communication with LBWF. 5. Participants commented that all contact with them is via LBWF Enforcement and that no contact is from LBWF Policy or Planning departments, which may explain the conicting information given to applicants. 6. Participants were unclear as to the points of contact available to them when seeking information, advice or guidance on planning applications, and where to direct their queries relating to the process. 7. It was acknowledged by participants that a language barrier exists, making it difcult for some members of the Asian community to access information easily.

WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011

Enforcement Ofcers Many participants complained about the conduct of LBWF Enforcement Ofcers, outlining their main issues as being: 1. Enforcement ofcers were inconsistent in their decisions; the outcome of the application was dependent on which Enforcement Ofcer they had visit their home, rather than a uniform application of laws and regulations. 2. Some participants complained that Enforcement Ofcers are rude to them when they visited their homes and were condescending in their attitudes to Asian people. 3. Participants gave instances when they had been questioned over household developments for which they already had approved planning permission, in a negative and aggressive way by Enforcement Ofcers, implying that the application should not have been approved in the rst place.

Lawful Development Certicates Some participants were aware of the Lawful Development Certicate and their comments regarding it were: 1. The process of obtaining a Lawful Development Certicate is lengthy, even for straightforward developments; with a simple application taking 4-5 months.
WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011 8

2. Lawful Development Certicates were costly and it was suggested that it should in fact be a free service 3. The consensus was that the Lawful Development Certicate should remain an optional choice.

Appeal Process 1. Most participants acknowledged that the Asian community did not make use of the appeal process or the complaints procedure available to them. 2. There was a lack of condence in the appeal process from the majority of participants, who considered it unlikely that previously refused applications would be overturned at appeal; consequently, it was not worth engaging in a lengthy and complex appeal process that they considered arbitrary. 3. A participant, who was familiar with the planning system through his work as an agent, asserted that he was condent that appeals could be won, as he felt that it was usually a relatively minor detail in the application that needed amending for a successful outcome. 4. However, in response other participants pointed out that the average applicant was not sufciently informed about the technicalities of why their applications had been refused, and this dissuaded applicants without a strong understanding of planning regulations from undertaking an appeal.

WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011

Other Issues raised A number of other issues arose in the discussion segment of the focus group; participants stated that: 1. LBWF management of the planning process lacks stability, caused by a high staff turnover, (including heads of department), resulting in the Borough not having a cohesive team that residents are familiar with, and who can provide strong leadership in the long-term. 2. Planners have a disincentive to grant planning permission due to the higher workload of paperwork involved, as opposed to the more straightforward process of refusing a planning application. 3. Planners apply rules inconsistently and lack knowledge about their own rules and procedures; resulting in discrepancies between what different applicants are told as to what is acceptable in an application for planning permission. 4. Double loft conversions allowed in some boroughs (including LBWF) but not in others and national guidance is inconsistently implemented locally by ill-informed planners. 5. Planners preferred to deal with agents (who can provide professional drawings), rather than members of the public. 6. The language used in correspondence to applicants from planning departments is generally too technical and full of jargon. 7. Much time and resources are wasted by the planning department in pursuing the minor complaints of uncooperative neighbours exaggerating small issues.
WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011 10

8. It was acknowledged that many problems are caused by the Asian community generally not using approved or accredited tradespeople, as they are obviously more expensive to employ. Participants recognised that in not doing so, they bore a higher risk of issues arising with the planning system, particularly if these builders gave clients incorrect advice, regarding planning permission not being needed for building work undertaken. The consensus was that the Asian community needed to be encouraged to consult and use accredited tradespeople, so as to limit the potential for problematic building developments.

Suggestions
Participants were asked for specic suggestions of practicable improvements LBWF could implement, in order to deliver better outcomes for the planning process, both for applicants and for LBWF. 1. " " " 2. ! " " Strengthen Pre-Enforcement Communication In instances where there may be problems with potential or existing property developments, members of the community should be contacted prior to the enforcement process, rather than after it. This would make for a far more constructive process, allowing people to ensure they take steps to comply with planning regulation in the Borough. Enhance Transparency Assign planners on an individual basis to each planning application submitted, in order to provide a clear and direct means of contact to that planner. This would ensure that applicants can get in touch with a named planner and get up-to-date information regarding their specic application, as well as get advice before the timeframe for the application elapses.
11

WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011

3. ! " " " 4. ! " " 5. ! " "

Make Planners Accountable to the Community Ensure information within the planning process is as transparent and accessible to the public as possible. Publish a monthly list of the individual cases each LBWF planner has handled and the decisions made accordingly, (accepted or rejected, with reasons for refusal, if applicable). This would help to make planners more accountable to the community they serve and assist in ensuring that relevant planning regulation is applied systematically and consistently. Well Trained Staff Ensure staff and decision makers are conversant with all recent and relevant planning regulations: Borough-wide, London-wide and UK-wide and that these regulations are applied consistently; to also hire planners who are appropriately qualied and understand the LBWF"planning system specically. Surgeries and Duty Planners Improve access to the on-duty planner and hold surgeries with either bi-lingual planning staff or translators present, enabling members of the Asian community to drop in to get advice on their planning applications, at each stage of the process with language support available as necessary.

6. Bi-lingual staff ! Availability of bi-lingual staff so Asian community can understand and engage more easily with planners and the planning " process.

WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011

12

7. ! " " " 8. ! " " 9. ! " "

Accessible Documentation Publish plain English guidance notes on planning regulations in LBWF, (to be made available in relevant community languages on request), which members of the Asian community can refer to before undertaking redevelopment work and submitting planning applications. It would be helpful if this material contained diagrams of acceptable and non-acceptable versions of the most commonly requested types of planning applications, e.g. loft conversions and extensions. Review Process Length Streamline the planning process to deliver quicker responses than currently experienced by applicants; with straightforward " applications processed through a fast track system; presently, the uncertain length of the process makes it difcult for applicants to plan ahead and manage their resources effectively. Professional Tradespeople Encourage the Asian community to employ professionally accredited and insured tradespeople to minimise the risk of being misinformed regarding planning requirements, thus preventing the need to go back to previous building works and saving money in the long term.

WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011

13