A Reform UK plan to cut the size of the civil service would involve sacking more planning officers than exist
Given that what the country requires is negative planning this seems entirely sensible to me.
A Reform UK plan to cut the size of the civil service would involve sacking more planning officers than exist
Given that what the country requires is negative planning this seems entirely sensible to me.
Gotta make damn sure you get ’em all!
than *currently* exist – they’re betting that some more will be appointed to replace those being sacked.
As you say, more than exist at the moment. From what I’ve seen, planning departments are all claiming they are understaffed and are trying to recruit, so there could easily be more by the next election.
Oddly enough there seemed to be enough of them before they started “working” from home; it’s only since then that the delays have gone from irritating to ridiculous.
AI:
“In 2015, the number of civil servants in the UK was approximately 490,000. This figure indicates a period of decline in civil service staff numbers that began around 2010”.
and
“As of Q3 2025, the UK civil service employed approximately 520,440 staff, marking a 35% increase since its low in 2016”.
One of those figures seems to be a lie, since a 35% increase to make 520,440 in 2025 would mean 385,511 in 2016.
Oh wait it’s AI. Which may mean there’s reports on the internet using different definitions and it’s conflating them.
“Decline” though? Is there a period where the number has ever gone down?
The Cornish experience seems to be that planning inspectors’ purpose is to override decisions made at a lower level by planning officers in the counties
Suggests that somewhere planning policy is at best ambiguous, probably totally arbitrary
Not necessarily so. Planning officers advise councils and councillors do override that advice usually to object to something. This was quite common in the mobile world.
My own example was that we applied to Harrow council to install antennas on the existing telecoms mast, in line with planning guidelines and the advice and support of the relevant planning officers. When the application went to the council meeting one councillor objected because nobody from the public had.
We appealed and the planning inspector was scathing of the council and we got our permission, but it still cost us 6 months of our commercial trials and upwards of £5k.
The problem isn’t the planners but planning laws and regulations.
As my neighbour says, the usual process seems to be:
We can argue over whether planning decisions should be made by bureaucrats or elected politicians,* but having a system that ping-pongs between the two is utterly ridiculous.
(* or of course neither, but somehow that never seems to be an option)
My personal experience is that the local district councillors on the Planning Committee are more sensible than the planning officers.
I may, of course, be an outlier.
Among detailed proposals for other areas, the paper calls for a “reduction of 450 FTEs in planning, accounting for £40m a year”. According to the 2025 statistics for civil servants employed in each role, however, there are only 445 planners employed across the civil service in Britain, about a third of them at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).
Asked how it would be possible to sack more planners than existed, a Reform spokesperson said the total included 440 people employed as planning inspectors at the MHCLG. “Our number stands,” they said.
How boring. Does anyone remember Nigel Farage saying anything racist at primary school?
Ofc, when they’re rummaging around in the “£40m a year” savings minutiae looking for howlers, it means Danny Kruger got the big numbers right.
There may be only 445 planners in the civil service, but there are thousands more in local government. Sack ’em all.
Sack loads of them.
For the rest, curb their pay and pensions.
Anyone on £200k+ gets an immediate 50% cut and the same to their pension.
£100k+ 25%
£50k+ 10%
All others 5%.
More than one week off sick per year without a doctor’s note – and doctors on pain of imprisonment for lying – gets sacked.
Right to strike removed at the same time.
If you are employed by government – national or local – then the maximum salary (+ bennies) should be capped to the same as the Prime Minister: anything over that is taxed at 100%. Same for any registered charity.
The major part of the prolbem is getting the ones who do go to work actually doing some work. The DWP is a good example.
To be honest I’d rather they didn’t do any work.
Yes, but people need the permit, which only they can issue.
My solution would be a rule that, if you’ve asked any government department (local or national) for permission for anything*, if they haven’t come up with any sensible reasons to object after X months, then permission is deemed to have been granted.
(* OK, we might want to exclude a few things)
s/months/days/g
Because I live overseas every 2 years I have to submit a proof of life certificate – a simple 2 sides of A4 (could be done on one) that in essence I admit I am alive and have a witness sign to confirm it. The actual man hours to process and confirm the document should take at max 10 minutes (2 operatives 5 mins each).
My latest effort took one month to reach me (by Malta Post!). The completed submission was recorded as delivered to the DWP mail processing centre on 23 April and I got acknowledgment that it had been processed on 26 May. OK it takes time for physical transit from Wolverhampton (mail processing centre) to Newcastle (DWP international pensions office) but 21 WORKING days to process a simple document is excessive.
As an aside, a couple of years ago I had a big spat withe the DWP, escalting to the Permanent Secretary’s Office. In the wind down I had a conversation with a manager at Newcastle. I asked if the WFH made a difference to working efficiency. His reply, “Not really, it’s about the same”.
BTW, when can we expect The Guardian’s thorough exposé of Green Party spending plans?
Never???
As soon as their correspondent gets back from Narnia.
At least the intention is solid: Don’t just cut the dead wood, but get rid of the entire ecosystem supporting it…
Slash and burn, baby!!
It’s not just planning officers. There are 550,000 civil servants. Including 8,000 in the dept of net zero, not one of whom seems to have the courage or intelligence to question Mad Ed’s BS.
Then there are another 400,000 in adjacent quangos. Supported by an entire ecosystem of NGOs and lobbyists.
The ship of state is so encrusted with barnacles and teredos worms it’s a wonder it’s still afloat.
I’m fairly sure I remember, at the point where Labour’s 1997 manifesto commitment to stick to the Tories’ spending plans expired – call it 2001, or 2022 – Gordon Brown more or less immediately recruited about 800,000 pubsec parasites.
Still with us, doubtless.
“They are not a serious party” . . . cries a Tory.
Gamecock would go for the head of the monster. Delete complete agencies – redundancies will follow.
Always go the full Javier Milei…
AFUERA!
Ah, it seems the Guardian is talking bollocks, again.
According to the Royal Town Planning Institute, there are approximately 22,000 town planners, of whom 12,000 are in the public sector and the other 10,000 in the private sector.
Presumably the vast majority of these are in local government, and the ‘only 445 in the civil service’ is only counting those in central government.
But let’s just sit back and think about that for the moment. Britain has 22,000 town planners. 22,000.
See Figure 6, here:
https://www.rtpi.org.uk/new-from-the-rtpi/state-of-the-profession-2023/#_Toc149742851
22,000? It takes a lot of planners to reject all the permit applications.
Though you’d think that with so many rejected, people would quit applying, and they could reduce staff.