📝 Other Correction

Written Corrections

🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️ 🌶️

During the Second Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Joe Powell emphasized the need to address the capacity crisis in planning departments to speed up housing delivery, questioning if the proposed planning fee reform could support the recruitment of the necessary 300 new planners. Nesil Caliskan acknowledged the staffing shortages, noting that according to the Local Government Association and the National Housing Federation, 80% of local authorities are currently operating below full capacity. This discussion highlights the urgent need for more resources and personnel in local government to meet housing targets.

Summary

  • Joe Powell emphasized the need to address the capacity crisis in planning departments to speed up delivery, welcoming the government’s commitment to hiring 300 new planners.
  • Powell questioned the total number of planners needed nationwide to meet housing targets and whether planning fee reforms in the Bill could support recruitment through full cost recovery.
  • Nesil Caliskan acknowledged the gaps in local government capacity, initially stating that only 80% of local authorities have the necessary capacity, but later corrected this to say that 80% are operating below full capacity.
  • The discussion highlighted the importance of matching planning reforms with adequate staffing and resources to ensure effective implementation.

Divisiveness

The transcript provided shows a very low level of disagreement. Both speakers, Joe Powell and Nesil Caliskan, are addressing the same issue of capacity in planning departments and local government. Joe Powell raises concerns about the need for more planners and questions the effectiveness of the proposed planning fee reform. Nesil Caliskan responds by acknowledging the gaps in local government capacity, reinforcing Joe Powell’s point about the issue. The only difference is in the statistics cited by Nesil Caliskan, which she later corrects in a written submission, but this correction does not indicate disagreement; rather, it is a clarification of the data. There is no direct confrontation or opposing viewpoints expressed in the dialogue, indicating a high level of agreement on the topic discussed.