Planning ahead to protect all our prosperity

The forthcoming Planning Bill provides an opportunity to define the term planner for the first time in legislation, writes Mary Hughes

Any person without responsibilities under a code of ethics, a recognised third-level planning qualification, or a commitment to continuing education and best practice may hold themselves out as a ‘planner’ or a ‘planning consultant’.

In fact, any unqualified individual, even with a criminal conviction for corruption in planning matters, can currently set themselves up as a ‘planner’ or ‘planning consultant’ and offer planning services to the public. However, they should not use the title planner if they do not have a planning qualification and are not committed to continuous professional development and a code of ethics.

This is misleading and potentially damaging to members of the public as customers of the system.

Actual planners study the land and decide where development is possible and what land should be conserved — in such a way to best suit current and future populations. Coherent, joined-up planning and development minimises costs and enables society to prosper.

However, such prosperity is impossible without appropriate resourcing. The process of planning requires the skillset and knowledge of professional planners tasked with applying the law and proper planning principles. As noted in the Mahon Report&, bad or absent planning is not victimless — rather its victims are too numerous to count. Therefore, in the interest of the common good and protecting society, the term ‘planner’ needs to be defined to ensure appropriately qualified people are working in the public and private system.

When we retain the services of any professional — barrister, doctor, electrician — we do so because we expect the highest of standards. The freedom to designate oneselg a planner has hampered proper planning, promoted short-term solutions, and led to the expensive pursuit of obviously unsuitable developments which would be against professional ‘planner’ advice.

We need a planning system in which the public can have confidence, yet the findings of the Mahon Tribunal have seriously eroded public confidence in the planning system and how it functions. While Mahon clearly illustrated the problems that arise out of a corrupt planning system, it also highlighted that planning is a uniquely participatory process. The public, planners, councillors, architects, engineers, developers, and local authority managers all have roles to play in the planning process. But these roles are not clear to the public and are sometimes conflicting. The term ‘planner’ is used as a scattershot label to describe all those involved in the planning process, including administrators, lobbyists, and other professions.

There is no doubt that corruption in the planning system is not the only reason for public cynicism. Broken promises and inconsistent decision-making all play their part but it is difficult to repair the trust of people in the planning system without first clearly defining those who work in the system. The forthcoming Planning Bill provides an opportunity to define the term planner for the first time in legislation. The Irish Planning Institute is now calling on the Government to include a simple and clear definition in that legislation: We believe that the absence of such a definition undermines the credibility which professional planners have and therefore undermines their ability to persuade on important issues.

THERE is no requirement to be a professional planner in order to work under the title of ‘planner’ in the public or private sectors. Furthermore, there is no requirement to be a member of a professional planning body to work under the title of ‘planner’. Non-members are not bound by a code of conduct and cannot be disciplined for unethical behaviour. This means it is not possible for professional planning bodies to maintain a certain standard of education across those working or perceived as working within the profession. This has significant implications for transparency and the perception of corruption. Introducing the definition of a ‘planner’ will ensure that members of the public are not fooled into believing they are dealing with individuals calling themselves something they are not.

Of course, while a great many people making planning applications use an agent to guide them through the process, they are under no obligation to do so and the professional bodies will continue to ensure the planning process is as accessible and user friendly as possible for all.

Bringing clarity to what a professional planner is will give some further protection for Irish people against deception and poor performance and will ensure our country’s land use is planned properly for the long term.

Mary Hughes MIPI is president of the Irish Planning Institute