The people of Milton Keynes are used to madcap moments in the planning department, but the latest idea has got heads spinning. Go on the Council’s website and you can see a line up of planning officers with ‘premium service’ booking fees attached. Now, instead of having a distant officer assigned to their case, applicants can choose their own. Prices for the new service range from £150 for a minor application up to £7,500 for a ‘super-major’ planning application, handled by a senior officer.
Fortunately the Head of Service, Brett Leahy, is not available for hire.
Mr Brett Leahy, head of planning
But although Councillors who sit on the scrutiny committee feel that the risk of corruption is low, some have admitted to the local ‘Citizen’ newspaper that it doesn’t look good.
Of course, many applications are decided in public by elected committees rather than by officers working behind closed doors. But not as many as before, due to other controversial ‘improvements’ in the way applications are processed.
But surely, despite applicants paying extra, the great tradition of neutrality in public service is as strong as ever? Well, you might like to read a recent article on the Royal Town Planning Institute’s blog called ‘How One Planning Department is smartening up their customer approach’. The smart author says, “Now more than ever local authorities need to use all the commercial tricks of the trade to generate income and capture repeat business from satisfied customers.”
Would this be the same Brett Leahy that tried to gag objectors at planning committees while extending rights for applicants? Indeed it would!
Thoughtful questions Georgina – I wonder if the manager who came up with this idea stopped to ask them too!
I find this extraordinary. It makes me think of Victorian (and sadly much later) times when day labourers would line up in the hope of being hired. What happens to the officers who are never chosen? Won’t popularity inevitably depend on getting approvals, thus putting pressure on individuals to do the popular rather than the right thing? What about the scope for prejudice against women or people who appear to be from ethnic minority backgrounds? Will the most senior always be chosen rather than the junior, reducing opportunities for the latter to gain experience? Or will the most junior be chosen because they are most malleable?
As an active trade unionist in my younger days I cannot believe that the staff have gone along with this. Makes me feel very old.