WFAMG Planning Focus Group Report

8/3/2019 WFAMG Planning Focus Group Report

1/13

WFAMG - Planning Focus Group Report - December 2011 1

Waltham Forest Asian Mothers Group

Planning Focus Group Report

(held on 7th December 2011)

!


2/13

Table of Contents

Introduction to Focus Group! 3Participants! 3Methodology! 3Understanding of planning system amongst participants! 4

Issues raised! 5Process! 5Communication & Transparency! 6Enforcement Officers! 8Lawful Development Certificates! 8Appeal Process! 9Other Issues raised! 10

Suggestions! 11



3/13

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 findings of the focus group; namely, the main issues participants identifiedregarding 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 first 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 specific and practicable

improvements to the planning system in LBWF, in order to increase the Asian communitys engagement with the planning process.


!


4/13

Understanding of planning system amongst participants

Participants clearly understood and supported the need for a system of development control. Their comments included:

1. People live in a community and have obligations towards one another

2. People cannot just do what they like in terms of building development.

3. We need a system to maintain a good quality of life in the community

4. Everyone should be subject to the same rules.


!

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?


5/13

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 specific areas as:

1. The LBWF eight-week timeframe for processing planning applications is not observed consistently.

2. Planning officers do not meet their own statutory deadlines, yet applicants are swiftly penalised by enforcement officers for failing to

meet deadlines set, even at short notice; participants felt angry about these double standards


!


6/13

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 insufficient 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 sufficient

resources at their disposal to make the necessary requested changes, but that this was extremely difficult 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 specifically 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.


!


7/13

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 ofreceiving conflicting 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 conflicting 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 difficult for some members of the Asian community to

access information easily.


!


8/13

Enforcement Officers

Many participants complained about the conduct of LBWF Enforcement Officers, outlining their main issues as being:

1. Enforcement officers were inconsistent in their decisions; the outcome of the application was dependent on which Enforcement

Officer they had visit their home, rather than a uniform application of laws and regulations.

2. Some participants complained that Enforcement Officers are rude to them when they visited their homes and were condescending intheir 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 Officers, implying that the application should not have been

approved in the first place.

Lawful Development Certificates

Some participants were aware of the Lawful Development Certificate and their comments regarding it were:

1. The process of obtaining a Lawful Development Certificate is lengthy, even for straightforward developments; with a simple

application taking 4-5 months.


!


9/13

2. Lawful Development Certificates were costly and it was suggested that it should in fact be a free service

3. The consensus was that the Lawful Development Certificate 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 procedureavailable to them.

2. There was a lack of confidence 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 confident 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 sufficiently 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.


!


10/13

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.


!


11/13

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 specific suggestions of practicable improvements LBWF could implement, in order to deliver better outcomes

for the planning process, both for applicants and for LBWF.

1. 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.

2. 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 specific application, as well as get advice before the timeframe for the application elapses.


!


12/13

3. 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.

4. 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 qualified and understand the

"" LBWF"planning system specifically.

5. 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.


!


13/13

7. 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.

8. 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 difficult for applicants to

"" plan ahead and manage their resources effectively.

9. 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

Documents

Transcript of WFAMG Planning Focus Group Report