As I mentioned in a post at the start of April, friend of the podcast Simon Ricketts has invited some of the finest minds in the planning profession... and me... to help him mark ten years of his Simonicity blog at a now sold out event at XLP in the ‘Smoke on Monday 1 June, Simon has asked Angus Walker, Catriona Riddell, Hashi Mohamed, Jennie Baker, Nick Cuff, Nicola Gooch, Philip Barnes, Zack Simons and I to speculate as to what the fast-paced, ever-changing, rock and roll world of town and country planning might look like in another ten years time.
My starting point is that planning, it could be said, exists to identify the problems of the future and to do something about them today...
From there my first thought then was to what was happening ten years ago. Would it have been possible to foresee then what we are talking about now? Below are the news stories that featured on the Planning website on 1 June 2016.
.png)
What do we notice?
The ‘B’ word gets a mention in that headline ahead of the referendum that was to take place later than month.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb might not agree that Brexit was a black swan event on the basis that, whilst referendums are rare, the outcome could have been predicted, but the impact has obviously been massive.
I have a theory that the Govian era of obfuscation around housing target has it’s roots in the post-vote period when backbench MPs were able to demand a higher and higher price for their Brexit deal votes (I seem to recall a spate of applications being called-in in Priti Patel’s Essex constituency?).
Donald Trump attacking Iran was less easy to foresee than that, but is another example of a material change in circumstances. I have heard it suggested that No. 10 is sympathetic to calls for some kind of support for first-time buyers, but that the SpAds tasked with developing one have been diverted to preparing for the impact of further increases in oil prices.
The key point though, thinking about the future, are the 'unknown unknowns' ('events, dear boy, events') and the ‘bandwith’ available to Government at any given time, where planning features on the list of priorities as a result, and, even if it does, the ability of the centre to get anything done.
My second thought was about the individuals that have had the most direct influence over the planning system over the last ten years. Two candidates come immediately to mind. Nicholas Boys-Smith and Rosie Pearson.
Beauty, for example, would never have become a strategic objective of the NPPF were it not for Nicholas.
In Rosie's case, according to it’s website, 700 community groups are now part of her Community Planning Alliance (CPA), which is quite the network to be mobilised as and when required.
Whether or not, for example, Liz Truss’ Investment Zones would have got anywhere is a conversation for another day (and it seemed to me in the context of what we are now calling either the ‘grit’ or the ‘sludge’ in system that the idea of consolidating multiple consents into a single one had a lot of merit...), but the fact that they did not is in no small part down to the effectiveness of the #AttackOnNature campaign that the CPA was part of and which torpedoed the idea in what felt like a matter of days.
The key point though, thinking about the future, is that Nicholas and Rosie are neither planners nor politicians. They are activists who have managed to bend the system towards their aims. Who, over the next ten years, will have a bee in their bonnet and the wherewithal to do something about it?
My third thought was to explore some of the current trends in planning and where they might take us.
Whisper it quietly but there could be a nascent move towards greater codification. If there is an application for this use in this location and it looks like this and it provides that then it should be determined in this way without further fuss. If though there is an application for this use in this location and it does not look like this and it does not provide that then it should be determined in this way without further fuss. This drive for standardisation must surely be supported (though success will likely depend on LPAs having the capacity to proactively determine what goes where at scale rather than reacting on an application-by-application basis), but whatever you do do not call it ‘zoning’ because the horses will get scared again.
The idea of applications being determined ‘without fuss’ is a quaintly charming one in an era when objecting to planning applications has become a national pastime. Why is that? Are people angrier post-Covid? Post-Brexit? Does this trend go back even further? A little longer than ten years ago under the auspices of localism communities were promised ‘control’? They cannot really have it though can they? Who is going to tell them? At what point will the Leader of a Council stand up and at say that we need this and that we need to make it happen?
All of this controversy and contentiousness has contributed to the parallel existence of two planning systems. In one the principle of development, whilst people will still object obviously, is relatively easy to establish. The big, brownfield regeneration project, for example. Here we can talk about constructive engagement, we can talk about placemaking, we can talk about stewardship, we can talk about all of the good stuff. In the other one though it is hard. The other one is for airport expansions, bridges, power stations and pylons, high speed railway lines, and yes, housing targets. Here we talk about a Government-commissioned review at one end and a judicial review at the other end and only later does anybody bemoan the huge opportunity cost in between. At what point will a Secretary of State stand up and at say that we need this and that we need to make it happen?
Perhaps it is just easier for a Secretary of State to stand up and say that one more round of planning reform will fix it. The drum beat of reform seems to be beating ever more loudly and incessantly. As sure as night follows day a new Government will want to stamp their mark on the planning system and swings of the pendulum have been and will likely always be inevitable, but planning reform now is almost pervasive. First there is the prospect of it, then there is a draft for consultation, then there is a wait to see what gets followed through with, then there is the fallout, the appeals and the court cases, and by the time we know where we are we have to go around again. Critically, each stage of the cycle makes every decision, be that how and when to publish a draft local plan, or how and when to make an application, a big one. What if this happens? What if that happens? Well we had better wait until after the local elections... Well we had better get a legal opinion. The noise is almost deafening at times.
In commercial terms the Home Builders Federation has calculated, for example, that £76,000 has been added to the cost of building a home since 2020. In process terms, whilst, for example, BNG, nutrient neutrality and waste water, have become fundamental to the operation of the planning system, planning is only peripheral to the operations of, for example, Natural England, the Environment Agency and the water companies. In contemplating how bad policy gets made, Jack Airey, a former SpAd in No. 10, has written about how every department and Secretary of State have their own priorities, often at odds with one other, and at that each has the tools to defend those interests. For us to plan better those priorities have to become better aligned.
Anyway. What is be made of any or all of that? I do not know, but I think it can be said with a high degree of certainty that the problems of the future are the same now as they were ten years ago. The key question is who in ten years will have done anything about them.
It can also be said with a high degree of certainty that it will be a lot of fun to discuss all of this with Simon and the rest of the gang in a few weeks time.
Comments
Post a Comment