Labour’s new approach to strategic planning

Peter Canavan, Partner in Carter Jonas’ Oxford office and James Ellis, Associate in Carter Jonas’ Bristol office are generally enthusiastic. Despite a prolonged period of government-imposed housing targets under the last administration, very little had occurred to facilitate them. The new government’s intention to drive growth through structural changes to the planning system is therefore encouraging.

Since Angela Rayner’s initial Statement to the House of Commons in July, the government has committed to building 1.5 million homes over the next Parliament, as well as introducing ‘cross-boundary strategic planning approach’ and ‘legislation to introduce mandatory mechanisms for strategic planning… to move to a model of universal strategic planning covering functional economic areas within the next five years’.

The NPPF consultation, which closed on 24 September, was, Peter and James agree, a welcome start: quite an achievement to have been concluded within the first 100 days although just the first stage in what must be a long process of reform.

Much needed change – but how?

In recent research conducted by the RTPI, 96% of planners surveyed agreed that change is needed across the private and public sectors. Furthermore, over 80% of planners were shown to support the government mandating strategic planning (which, the RTPI commented, was ‘almost completely abolished’ by the Coalition government in 2010).

So after the revised NPPF, what next? Is there a team of civil servants currently working on a wholescale reform of the planning system, or can the necessary changes be achieved through changes to existing legislation? A Planning and Infrastructure Bill is on the agenda, but to what extent will it address the need for change?

Structural change

Peter and James agree that change must address the root cause of the problem: the planning system itself, not solely the lack of new homes.

But this does not necessarily require a new system: rather, appropriate enforcement of the existing system. “In theory the current system works well,” says Peter. “Nationally led policy on the broader issues (the NPPF), strategic planning on a local level to determine the allocation of development (local plans), local input on the siting of that development (neighbourhood planning), the masterplanning and detailed consideration of new communities (planning applications) and, as necessary, the appeal system, provide a good structure for delivery.”

Addressing system failures

As anyone in planning and development will know, the issues arise when the system fails, as James describes: “Local plans often fail to meet nationally-set housing targets not least address unmet need; Neighbourhood Plans more often than not take on the role of opposing development rather than accommodating it; planning applications are refused because of opposition to the principle of development, and the appeals system takes the ultimate decision out of local jurisdiction.”

System breakdown - which occurs all too frequently - is, Peter and James agree, the result of an absence of regional planning and (as a direct result) too much politics in planning. This is illustrated in the RTPI’s research which reveals that 40% of local authority planners work for LPAs which do not have a current local plan. In the majority of situations, those local plans will have stalled for political reasons.

“Our current planning system is the product of decades of tinkering and little overview as to how the system should work, from national policy down to planning applications,” says Peter. “In 2011, Localism was brought in to try to appease the argument that Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) were top-down ‘unelected quangos’. Along with removing the most important element of strategic planning, this essentially introduced an element which (intentionally or otherwise) was anti-planning and anti-development."

The reintroduction of regional planning

“For planning to succeed and for housing targets to be met, the regional level must be re-introduced. This would alleviate some of the pressure on local plans and better manage the politics in planning. The introduction of the promised Spatial Development Strategies (SDS) is eagerly anticipated,” says James.

In removing pressures from the local level, we are not advocating a top-down approach, but one which makes it easier for local planning to succeed: if for example, housing targets were determined on a regional level and passed down to the LPA, local councillors would no longer risk the electoral unpopularity which comes with justifying housing targets or the consequences of failing to meet them. That said, there is likely to be some politics at a regional level (and there should be some accountability, to avoid the criticisms made of RSS), but it will be felt less acutely, and of course the government must impose responsibility from the top: both carrot and stick have a role to play.

Changed focus for local plans

We are already seeing this come into effect: at the time of writing, seven English LPAs with draft plans that are at an advanced stage of preparation may be told to ‘go back to the drawing board’ because the gap between their proposed home targets and Labour’s revised housing need assessment is too great. At the same time, others are accelerating their plans to attempt to utilise ‘transitional arrangements’ and avoid housing need increases in the short term.

Plans already at the Examination stage will be allowed to proceed under the existing system but those yet to reach the Regulation 19 Consultation stage must be prepared under the revised rules if the gap between the strategy’s proposed housing target and the government’s new assessment of need is too great.

As James explains, a regional approach could address this: “We cannot overlook the fact that many local authorities are constrained by genuine impediments to development – primarily environmental and geographical – but the system whereby unmet need is dealt with by neighbouring local authorities is inadequate. Consideration at a regional level would allow issues to be more holistically taken into account to provide an adequate distribution of homes and infrastructure. This is something the Duty to Cooperate has been inadequate at achieving to date.”

The pressure on local authorities to prepare comprehensive local plans is immense, explains Peter: “Local authorities have responsibility for everything from taxes to bin collection and are universally under-resourced. Many fail in their local planning partly through lack of resources and also because local people, confused by their council’s broad remit, overlook the importance of engaging on the local plan – or if they do so, they approach is on the basis of concern over housing (over or under provision), the environment, local services or other single issues. This shows a lack of understanding of the interdependencies and the process of strategic development as a whole. I’ve never seen a genuinely successful consultation on a local plan which addresses development more holistically.

“Furthermore, a lack of understanding and / or awareness, and the dominance of single-issue politics in local planning results in a bun fight at a local level. Moving this responsibility up a level does not necessarily mean that existing resources are over-stretched or extra resources are demanded, as an onerous responsibility will be lifted from local authority members and officers. Free of housing need decisions, they are better place to plan for delivering those homes, enabling them to utilise their local knowledge to better effect.

The broader role of planning

Another problem that currently plagues the planning system is that planning is all too often seen as synonymous with new homes. Of course, planning is much more – it has an important role in stewardship of the natural environment (not least through biodiversity net gain and mitigating the impacts of climate change) and is the primary driver of economic growth, not only because of the multiplier effect of development, but because it facilitates new infrastructure, industrial and commercial development. A regional approach is both better placed to plan on a broader scale (while also taking on responsibility for issues concerning environmental protection / mitigation and utilities) while also having greater objectivity.

Greater efficiencies

Another necessary tweak is the long-waited introduction of Development Management Policies (DMPs) as appendices to the NPPF. “Local plans often contain up to thirty DMPs,” says Peter, “Most of which have been copied and pasted from other local plans. In the interests of efficiency, as well as consistency, there is a need for nationally-written DMPs to cover design, amenity and access – no more. These three areas cover the broad parameters of development and give LPAs flexibility to create regionally distinctive variation.”

Effective regional planning, a less onerous role for LPAs and therefore more effective and less adversarial local plans benefits the development planning process: with the housing allocations being removed but the principle of development a focus of the local plan process, the developer’s consultation on specific planning applications should be reduced to masterplanning, character and environment – one which is relatively non-adversarial and allows positive and effective engagement.

As a result of a greater emphasis on regional planning, appeals – which have become increasingly common – will become less frequent.

Conclusion

Gaining broad support for planning - turning public opinion from ‘no to new homes’ to an appreciation of the rigour behind the planning process - will take time. Likewise the setting up new planning bodies (regional planning teams and development corporations too), establishing a new role for the Green Belt and setting in motion a new New Towns development programme. But 100 days into a new parliamentary term, the government has time on its side. It also has the considerable goodwill of an industry desperate for positive change.

Given a commitment to planning and planners, rather than simply setting new records for housing delivery, there is a solution to the housing crisis, levelling up, pressure on utilities and the environmental issues which have unnecessarily stalled planning decisions for many years.