Simon Wicks, editor of the RTPI's 'The Planner', collared me after the RTPI Young Planners Conference in Birmingham a couple of months ago and asked me write 390 words for the upcoming edition. I proudly accepted this kind invitation and duly wrote 390 words on Westminster's intoxication with planning reform and what could be achieved without it.
I am sharing it here for anybody who is not a RTPI member and may be interested in reading it. Thanks to Simon for the opportunity and for the title.
In the same way that objecting to planning applications has become a national pastime, expounding in abstract terms on the need for planning reform has become a hobby for many in Westminster.
As has been demonstrated of late though, ‘levelling the foundations and building, from the ground up, a whole new planning system for England’ is harder than it sounds.
Of greater importance right now is surely just getting the wheels back on the wagon and getting the wagon moving in the right direction and, with that aim in mind, arguably the most helpful change the next government could affect is simply to make planning less febrile.
A press release published to coincide with Keir Starmer’s recent party conference speech offers some hope from Labour in that regard. It is unambiguous about, for example, the reinstatement of local housing targets; an immediate instruction to LPAs to approve applications in areas without a local plan; and a threat of intervention where plans are “egregiously” delayed.
A policy agenda underpinned by incremental improvements is not very eye-catching, however, which is why that press release also talks bombastically about a ‘blitz’ of reform.
Planning’s discretionary nature attracts criticism from proponents of codified arrangements, but there is no need for concepts like ‘Growth, Renewal and Protection Areas’ to provide certainty as to what type of development is acceptable where.
Local Development Orders can guide new allocations and Area Action Plans or Supplementary Planning Documents can guide regeneration priorities.
A national scheme of delegation could confirm that applications consistent with policy will only be determined by committees in exceptional circumstances.
Planning gain contributions required by way of Section 106 and CIL should be openly and transparently available, as should what that money will be spent on and when.
National Development Management Policies, accompanied by template planning conditions and Section 106 Agreements, would provide clarity and consistency for all concerned.
If local elections in thirds were done away with there would be four-year windows within which to get local plans adopted.
None of that requires a ‘blitz’. Councils just need the time and space (and money) to plan proactively.
A new government wanting to make a mark on the planning system is as inevitable as night following day but planners need to push back against an intoxication with reform by demonstrating what is achievable without it.
Comments
Post a Comment