No short term answers in planning reform

It was no surprise that planning played a noticeable part in last week's Budget. In the weeks leading up to George Osbourne's announcement, a number of ministers, including the PM himself, had identified the planning system as a drag on growth that was ripe for reform. The language used by Osborne, Pickles, Cable et al typifies the Coalition's approach to the public services, where town hall bureaucracy is supposedly stifling economic growth.



The Budget therefore included a number of measures to reform the planning system and align it with the new growth agenda. This included:

- a presumption in favour of 'sustainable development'
- a new National Planning Policy Framework
- changes to permitted development rights, including the ability to change offices to residential use without planning permission.
- prioritising growth and jobs in local planning policies
- land auctions
- involving businesses in the shaping of Neighbourhood Plans
- 21 Enterprise Zones where planning restrictions would be removed

Despite the rhetoric, none of this is radically new and has appeared in a previous Green Paper on Planning written by the Conservatives when in Opposition. Much has since been written in reaction to the announcements and I direct you to excellent articles by Jamie Carpenter (here) and the Centre for Cities (here).

Overall, I am positive about any initiative to align planning with economic aspirations and, if undertaken correctly, the Enterprise Zones can help new initiatives be trialed (as I have discussed previously - see here). The Royal Docks in London will be a good test case. Over the last 15-20 years the area has seen significant development, with commercial schemes, the Excel Centre and a number of Ballymore-led residential towers. The onus is therefore less on physical improvements and more on business incentives and attracting jobs. Whether this just shifts existing jobs from elsewhere will be interesting to see.


My main gripe with the Budget is the unrealistic timetable for these reforms. The presumption in favour of 'sustainable development' was originally suggested in the Conservative Green Paper but failed to make it into the Localism Bill. Why has this policy been discarded but now held up to be the saving grace for economic growth? If it is to be re-inserted into the Localism Bill, this will take time and further debate in the House of Commons. Furthermore, the policy in favour of sustainable development must be aligned with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Nobody has yet seen the NPPF, so it is unrealistic to see this being adopted before the end of 2011. So, for both the Localism Bill to be adopted and the NPPF to be in force, it will be a further 18 months at least. In the meantime the Government will be under pressure to increase growth above 2%, reduce unemployment and build more homes. It is hard to see if any of the Budget announcements can make any difference in the short term. Whilst I commend the proposed reforms, why weren't they made Government policy 18 months ago?

The Pitfalls of Localism - an agenda for 2011

With the Localism Bill finally sneaking onto the parliamentary agenda before the Christmas break, we can now look forward to how localism will evolve in 2011. This has become the defining principle of the Coalition Government and Pickles, Shapps et al have been wheeled out to extol the shift in power from central Government to local communities. Up until the now the Tories have been able to talk in generalities and avoid the policy detail. This has to end. References to the ‘Big Society’ and ‘Neighbourhood Planning’ have been defined more by what they are not as opposed to what they truly are. This article in The Economist excellently sets out how the direction of travel is clear but the details of the journey are both lacking and potentially unworkable.

The benefits of local empowerment are easy to describe on the election campaign trail. Faceless bureaucrats can be painted as bogey-men wasting taxpayers money and communities can save the day by making more informed decisions. But I see two problems. Firstly, how powerful can localism be without true fiscal autonomy? Cities can only make independent decisions if they raise their own taxes and then choose how to spend the money. If regional cities are to have elected Mayors then they also need greater independence from the Treasury. Cities such as Newcastle, Leeds and Manchester require the power to make decisions on economic development, including control over business rates. With the removal of Regional Development Agencies and the cuts in public sector assistance to local businesses, Local Authorities must have the tools to be bold enough in their strategy for economic development. Localism without fiscal autonomy is a bugger’s muddle.

The second problem I see is the tendency of political parties to suddenly realise the benefits of central power once in Government. Giving away power to local people is easy to support when in opposition, but when in Government politicians quickly see the pitfalls of trusting local people over central departments. One reason is that unsuccessful local policies easily rebound up to the national level. To avoid this occurring local governments are therefore kept on a tighter leash, both through centrally controlled budgets and policy. For localism to work the Government must accept the risks in devolving power. It will involve unwelcome stories of local authorities who depart from what the Tories may naturally advocate. But, and more importantly, localism could include inspiring stories of where Local Authorities have grasped independence to involve the community on how public services should be operated.

Urban planning will be a key test area and I have no doubt some Local Authorities will resist any attempt to build more homes locally. This should be expected. It therefore leaves a clear opportunity for other towns and cities to welcome new development and reap the benefits. Until now architects, planners and politicians have been weak on selling the benefits of development, in particular housing. This must change, as outlined in a recent editorial in the Architects’ Journal. Again, this will be risky and it will take time for development levels to pick up to match demand. But hopefully it will encourage some cities to gain greater individual identity and avoid the ‘urban renaissance’ path which has characterised urban redevelopment since 1997 (and excellently critiqued in this book by Owen Hatherley).

Clearly there are risks, but politicians must overcome their safety-first instincts to avoid the centralising forces once again scuppering the potential of localism and local empowerment.

Planning - the defining issue of the coalition?

Despite my obvious biases, I've always thought urban planning could benefit from greater attention in the UK - both in the media and at a political level. The fact that planning is dealt with at the national level within the depths of the Department of Communities and Local Government says it all. Where is the Department for Planning? But........my dreams may be coming true.

It seems that the coalition's dominant themes of localism and the 'Big Society' are being clearly expressed in the realms of housebuilding, planning and environmental protection. Slowly but surely the media are picking up on this and I've noticed an increasing amount of commentary on areas which were previously seen as dry and boring. Only last Friday did the Guardian run an Editorial on the problems associated with the abolition of the regional planning system.

Planning has become one public policy area where the coalition have been quick to tear up Labour policy and hastily enact new ideas linked to the themes of localism and the 'Big Society'. Since the coalition was formed in May the following changes have either directly or indirectly significantly influenced planning, in particular housebuilding:

• the abolition of regional strategies, including the scrapping of housing targets for local authorities;
• the redefining of 'brownfield' land to exclude gardens with the intention of avoiding building homes on back gardens;
  
• the removal of a minimum density at which homes must be built;
• the encouragement of 'free schools' which can be set up anywhere and therefore require a relaxation of planning controls; and
  
• greater freedoms to build homes in the rural area if agreed by the community.

These are just a few policy decisions and I'm sure there are plenty more.

Whilst I'm pleased that debate is taking place on matters such as 'where and what should we build', it is frustrating that a raft of coalition policy has come out which is fragmented and ultimately will decrease housebuilding. Last year the number of homes built was the lowest since 1923 and the new coalition policies will do nothing to increase this level.


All incoming Governments start with the ambition of simplifying the planning system and making it easier to gain permission for sensible and sensitive development. Most would agree. I felt that between 1997 and 2010 Labour did over-complicate the planning system with too much being asked of poorly resourced Local Authorities. Despite this I believe they had the correct intention of setting a spatial strategy for a local area from which all other decisions would follow. The recent abolition of the regional tier of planning removes this spatial strategy. We no longer have a guide of how to match homes with jobs and where regionally significant infrastructure should be located. Comparisons with abroad is always dangerous but the Dutch planning system is rightfully lauded for providing a national framework that clearly guides the broad locations for development. Frustratingly it looks like we have taken one step forwards and two back!