Major planning decisions across England are open to corruption from secretive lobbying, conflicts of interest and bribery, according to new research by Transparency International UK
Local authorities across England lack essential safeguards to prevent corruption in planning decisions, new research by Transparency International UK has warned.
‘Permission Accomplished’ reveals how individuals and companies may seek to corrupt major planning decisions through generous gifts and hospitality, lobbying key members in secretive closed-door meetings, and hiring serving councillors with inside knowledge to help secure development consents.
Research suggests that these risks are compounded by weak safeguards against major conflicts of interest, such as councillors working for developers on the side, combined with a lack of meaningful sanctions to deter misconduct.
Transparency International UK assessed 50 councils in England with planning responsibilities for housing and scored them on how well they manage corruption risks using a scale of 0 (poor) to 100 (meets good practice).
Research shows:
- All demonstrate significant room for improvement, with an average score of just 38 out of 100
- 84% of these councils scored less than 50
- More than half scored under 40, indicating worrying gaps in corruption safeguards
The report identifies five key corruption risks relating to councillors’ involvement in major planning decisions.
These corruption risks include:
Alleged bribery and excessive gifts and hospitality
A £500m+ development in Tower Hamlets is under investigation by the National Crime Agency over the alleged solicitation of bribes for councillors.
A planning chair in Westminster council was forced to resign over excessive gifts and hospitality worth over £13,000.
Secretive lobbying
A £200m+ development in Liverpool is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, with no minutes taken at meetings between the developers, councillors and their officials.
Conflicts of interest
The research discovered 32 councillors across 24 councils holding critical decision-making positions in their local planning system whilst also working for developers.
Report recommendations
Transparency International UK has made 10 practical recommendations that it said would be relatively inexpensive, easy for local authorities to implement and would improve transparency and strengthen oversight of the planning process.
The recommendations include:
- Minute and publish all meetings with developers and their agents for major developments
- Prohibit those involved in making planning decisions from accepting gifts and hospitality that risk undermining the integrity of the planning process
- Prohibit all councillors from undertaking lobbying or advisory work relating to their duties on behalf of paying clients.
‘Eroded trust in the planning system’
Duncan Hames, director of policy at Transparency International UK, said: “Given the controversy often surrounding major developments, the evidence we have gathered makes for worrying reading.
“Poor practice can give residents the overriding impression that decisions are being taken to benefit powerful and wealthy interests at the expense of delivering much-needed, truly affordable homes.
“Failing to recognise these concerns threatens to further erode trust in the planning system and undermine billions of pounds of investment.
“Many will be disturbed to hear that there are those entrusted to decide on major planning applications who also work part-time for developers as their clients.
“Allowing such a clear conflict of interest for those holding senior roles does nothing to address concerns that the planning system is open to abuse.
“Councillors working for developers in their private time should not be allowed to influence or determine any major planning applications.”
Hames added: “Fortunately, most of these issues can be easily addressed by local authorities without the need for a change in the law.
“While our recommendations are not a silver bullet, for many councils they would represent a major improvement on the measures currently in place.”
How about this one. A piece of green belt flood plain land is put up for sale for £400,000. A recent purchaser buys it and THE SAME DAY she completes on it she sells it to the local council for £1,000,050 for use as a SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space) for their adjacent and proposed major green belt and brownfield masterplan. If that isn’t insider knowledge ripping the council off I don’t know what is.
Should be looking at St Helens, lots of greenbelt land applications for warehousing and distribution – Florida Farm North massive farm site destroyed by Bericote. Residents living with the nightmare, developer, council, councillors apathetic. Council backed application for Parkside – which they will preside over is being called in by Secretary of State along with J25 at Wigan and the Stobbart application in Warrington – far too many of this type of development in a relatively small geographical area. Local roads already clogged with HGVs over-nighting in lay-bys, on industrial roads and encroaching into residential areas. Now Peel actually want Haydock Point in front of Haydock racecourse calling in – they are so thoughtful as it will save the council money and time and it can be viewed by the same inspector. Haydock under seige.
British government and the monacy have been corrupt ever since I can remember.
I live in a village in Kent only 8 houses local council now wants to grab the land for redevelopment as they say, to do with the government guidelines joke.
We have been given a demolition order for the next 2or 7 years yet the government put aside money to upgrade the property.
This council is so corrupt it wants to sell it on to a developer for rich people
Most are elderly or disabled and ju before Christmas this is what we get a letter of demolition.
Someone should ask the question what happened to the millions of pounds they got from the sale of council property and didn’t build any new housing corruption is rife I. UK and always will be, they say about other countries only difference is they don’t hide it like this country does.