The true test of LB Lewisham

[Tim Lund]

If Whitehall paid we are still paying for it and a complete waste of money.

I don't necessarily agree. If there is evidence why our Mayor is a good choice as part of our government's mission civilisatrice in Afghanistan, then it would be as good value as our military engagement there.

Given what we know about Bogotà, it might be better value for the UK government to pay for its Mayor to go out to Afghanistan - I suspect that their experience is more relevant than ours. But sadly we are saddled with an administrative class in Whitehall whose attitudes to abroad - apart from the more civilised parts of Europe - are revealed here

As for Bogotà - well, you know what the dying George V said about the oddly similarly spelt Bognor...

[Tim Lund]

I was thinking of starting a new thread here - "The True test of any local authority", but this thread provides some context.

The fresh line of thought came from a sermon recently where the Minister launched into a bit of a tirade about the delays in getting permission for some new, less steep steps up to the chapel. Apparently it took 18 months to get permission to go from this



to this



leaving me wondering if there were enough similar, non controversial planning cases across the country for that the relative efficiency of councils to be meaningfully compared, publicised, and so allowing us to get beyond simple council knocking anecdotes.

I googled "Planning Watch", but that just seemed to lead to stories about significant controversial planning cases, which is not what I had in mind. Any ideas, anyone? Are the apps ready yet to scrape planning web sites to automate the collection of evidence?

[leenewham]

There have been a lot of cuts recently.

There are lots of planning applications.

Lots of planning applications, not enough planners = big delays.

Simples. There are some issues with planning, but generally I've found planning to be full of rather good and efficient officers. It's just that there aren't enough of them.

[Tim Lund]

Not disagreeing, Lee, and clearly things are not made easier by cuts, but how do we avoid being unduly influenced by our own experiences, which for any one individual can only be anecdotal? And I'm just as interested to know where local authorities are performing well as badly.

I'm surprised there has not yet been any comment here on today's CQC revelations or previously anything on the Mid Staffs scandal, apart from one passing reference of mine. One of the things that interested me about reaction to this was that 30,000 marched to defend the hospital concerned. I would imagine this was because the majority of people going to any local hospital experience decent care and are naturally grateful for it, so their anecdotal evidence is all positive. Maybe this is enough, but most people would expect a system which encourages the best reasonably attainable level, whatever the service, and for that publicised survey data is always going to be the most effective way.

I might add that your experience may be influenced by knowing how things are done rather better than someone coming to it new - as in the case I was hearing - and so making it easier for officers to be efficient. It's also possible that you, unasked for, get better treatment, since planning officers will know you as a very articulate local activist; they will want to make a good impression on you.

[leenewham]

I was being rather over simplistic. There are other issues with planning, some of which I'm sure we will agree on Tim.

The process is too much of a one size fits all. Communication is very poor. All councils have pretty much exactly the same planning guidelines, which is wrong. Especially for commercial. They should be bespoke to each area and based on common sense and treat guidelines as just that. Guidelines, not rules.

Generally officers I meet are frustrated by the red tape and guidelines which are interpreted by some as rules. If they were rules then the guidelines should be called rule books.

Permitted development rights should be better communicated.
Guidelines should be more inspirational.
They should be better publicised and better designed to make them easy to understand.
They should be localised.
They should offer alternatives and not just be about one solution.
They should be picture heavy, not wordy documents.
Officers should be allowed to use their judgement more.
There should be more planning officers.
Each town centre manager should be plugged into the planning department. Perhaps powers should be given more to traders groups and TCM's regarding planning.
They should be there to help, make things better, not hinder.

In the long run it may even save money and make out high streets and living spaces better.

It's interesting that at a recent talk by the Mayor of Lewisham at Sydenham Community Library (in which he never mentioned Sydenham by name and referred to it as 'Lewisham' which I find irritating) he said that they wanted to run the library as a community library but 'in large bureaucratic institutions like councils it just wouldn't work'. If it's an issue, then why on earth isn't our mayor changing it if he knows it's a problem (which in Lewisham it is, it's one of the most inflexible councils I've dealt with). Councils can be flexible, work for the good of the people they are supposed to serve and can use good judgement and common sense if their officers are given the confidence and space to do so.

[Tim Lund]

Lots of interesting points there Lee, and we will agree on much, but there's a fundamental point where we might not. This is that I, often but by no means always, see value in greater centralisation and more systematic bureaucracy. In planning it should allow the development of professional careers for the 'bureaucrats', who by showing competence and efficiency will be able move on to fresh challenges, maybe managing the planning function on a larger scale than individual authorities. There is an obvious danger in this, in that local context and sensitivities are lost, but the danger on the other side is that poorly performing staff stay in position, and local decisions become more or less arbitrary. There is also the danger that by making special rules for every area, comparisons, and hence transparency, become very difficult.

Perhaps we will be able to agree that if Steve Bullock says that in "large bureaucratic institutions like councils something just wouldn't work", we should want to know why - and perhaps be looking for evidence of comparable institutions where it does work better.

[Tim Lund]

For the sake of keeping the Silverdale water leak thread focused, I'm posting here a further reflection, referring back to the quote in the OP

the true test of the new political system will be whether the tenant with the broken window, the library user wanting longer opening hours, or the dog walker wanting a graffiti-free park, will notice any difference

I know it's a vain wish, but still I wish that local government could be focused more on these sorts of nitty-gritty problems, where it has a clear role in identifying them, communicating them, and either solving them or co-ordinating their solution. The problem is that much of this is quite technical, and needs to be managed in ways which have been transformed by the 'information revolution'. So, keeping on top of pot holes in roads, I'm told, now depends on a large central database where problems are reported and prioritised, leaving local authorities with a reduced albeit still significant role. I suspect with the water leak on Silverdale the long term solution will depend on some technological breakthrough which will allow the more efficient identification of where there are problems with our creaking infrastructure. But such innovation will require local authorities to subordinate themselves to larger entities, for which local political structures, such as our Mayoral system, are largely irrelevant.