A new government white paper asks for views on proposed changes to the planning system. How can we understand what it says and how to respond? Local planning expert and climate group member, Yvonne Estop-Wood, gives us the low-down.
First, a simple explanation of town planning:
- A ‘local plan’ (EHDC call it the district plan) is produced by every council to show where and when development can take place, over 15-20 years.
- The local plan has policies for economy, environment, transport, housing, public services, public spaces.
- Planning permission is granted for each development, after consultation, with detailed conditions on how, when and why specific actions and precautions are needed.
We all moan about planning and blame it for over-development, too much traffic, and loss of trees. Councils are slow, planners are boring, planning permission for my extension was refused while the new multi-storey car park was granted… So why should we be bothered by a new planning system, simplifying permissions to get housing built, with councils having a reduced role to play?
We do need to be bothered because the local plan is the basis of locally determined community life, conservation and environmental responsibility. The government proposals would standardise development policies across the country, require local authorities to make design rules only and limit public involvement in planning applications.
Here are seven points to help you respond to the proposals.
1 Focus on the core proposals
Here is a summary of the main things the government wants to do, with comments on why they raise concerns in italics. The Government aims to increase certainty and reduce financial risk for landowners and developers, and to increase the amount of houses built:
- Councils to produce simplified local plans defining land in their area as three zones – growth (fields around towns), renewal (old bits to be redeveloped), protection (green belt, heritage, vulnerable nature). This is too simplistic. It ignores how towns and neighbourhoods actually work, and ignores transport and industry.
- Land for growth would have automatic planning permission (instead of needing an outline application). This will automatically allow development without scrutiny of boundaries, access and layouts. It might promote sprawl and reduces the chance for public comment.
- In renewal areas, simpler planning permissions called a ‘fast track to beauty’. This means more kinds of development would be allowed without the need for planning permission, including some ‘densification’ of suburban areas, as long as it follows a national ‘design code’. The increase in permitted development is a removal of local control and reduces scrutiny and quality.
- Councils to produce local plans in 30 months (rather than 3 years), based on the number of homes and business floorspace needed. This would ‘provide certainty’ for developers and local communities. But with ‘more public engagement in plan-making’. A strategic approach to allocating land cannot be rushed and needs proper research and specialist consultation. Development should always be based on transport and environmental impact, this is not mentioned at all. More ‘public engagement’ means the chance for landowners to contribute rather than the local community.
- Planning permissions to be determined by national policy (the National Planning Policy Framework – NPPF) rather than locally-determined policy in local plans. Councils would just make design rules covering local character. Planning policy is the way places are shaped. Limiting council and community input will damage sense of ownership and stewardship of places, and rules for design will be easily exploited by developers.
- Instead of the existing ‘tests of soundness’ for local plans, there would be a ‘simplified test about whether the plan contributes to achieving sustainable development in accordance with policy issued by the Secretary of State.’ In other words, not sustainable, because the government has already devalued the word. The current tests of soundness are sensible, this simplification puts aside a lot of environmental impact appraisal.
- Funding for public services with a nationally set, flat rate charge (the ‘Infrastructure Levy’ – IL) based on development value. Small schemes of up to 50 homes would not have to pay – to help small building companies. The IL is very unclear, but is a long way from ‘land value capture’ whereby the community benefits from the increased land value, rather than the landowner.
- ‘….we will facilitate ambitious improvements in the energy efficiency standards for buildings to help deliver our world-leading commitment to net-zero by 2050, including the Future Homes Standard – with Zero Carbon ready homes from 2025.’ This is very weak considering the climate emergency, which the white paper does not address. ‘Facilitate’ means the main responsibility will be left to the developer’s discretion.
2 Most of what it proposes could be accommodated without scrapping the existing legislation.
The East Herts District Plan already allocates land for growth and renewal and protection. Local plan policy is effectively outline permission already. It is backed by information about our population changes, economy, environment. It is being implemented now. The proposed changes would create a period of uncertainty and disruption while the new zoning takes place. The emphasis on speed would encourage house builders to standardise buildings, and short-cut established place-making practices.
3 Don’t forget what the government has already damaged
We need to speak out against what the government has already done to damage planning: scrapping of energy targets for new buildings; devaluing ‘sustainability’ to embrace short term economics; and making ‘infrastructure’ mean roads only, rather than water treatment and supply, runoff drainage, flood defence, energy, waste, buses, bikes and car clubs.
4 Don’t be distracted by the nice bits
Don’t be distracted by the lovely photos in the white paper. It proposes nice things weakly – removal of viability assessments, prevention of ugliness, appointment of a head of design in each local authority – all fine, and variations of old tunes. It presses for digitisation of planning information, rather than documents: fine. This can be done without a new zoning system.
5 Pay attention to the criticisms
We should not object without taking seriously the white paper’s criticisms of current plan-making – do all councils have to reinvent policies? And its criticisms of obstructive local decision-making – after all, we all moan, so it is reflecting this. The criticisms arise from bad behaviour of developers, consultants milking the system with overblown documents, and local busybodies stubbornly delaying change. While challenging the white paper reforms, we should respectfully ask our councillors and pressure groups to engage with EHDC and make the best of new development where the plan allocates land, not repeatedly object in principle. Together with the district and town council we should resist speeding up development to enable better schemes.
6 What the white paper completely misses
Perhaps we do need planning reforms, but the big immediate challenges are entirely missed by this white paper, for example:
- The 2019 Climate emergency and 2050 target needs heavy obligations on developers to make zero carbon developments – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/15/uk-infrastructure-inadequate-for-climate-emergency-experts-warn
- Land value captured for community well-being – https://www.theplanner.co.uk/news/land-value-capture-system-reform-could-offer-public-service-gains-say-mps
- Green belt policy needs reform to actually shape growth and restrain sprawl – https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/more-people-are-calling-for-green-belt-reform-and-the-government-is-listening/
- Housing need needs to be disentangled from the developers ‘delivery’ of any homes anywhere – https://www.bigissue.com/latest/finance/a-land-banking-scandal-is-controlling-the-future-of-british-housing/
- Serious public transport planning to serve rich and poor – https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk/
- Rebalancing northern and coastal towns – https://northernpowerhouse.gov.uk/
7 It doesn’t mesh with the Environment Bill
The white paper seems to be at odds with the Environment Bill, which ‘will put the environment at the centre of policy making. It will make sure that we have a cleaner, greener and more resilient country for the next generation.’ The planning white paper seems oblivious to a green and resilient country, and potentially helps landowners and developers to the severe detriment of local communities.
How to comment
The government has set a deadline of 11:45pm on 29 October for comments.
You can respond online: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/MHCLG-Planning-for-the-Future/
Or email: planningforthefuture@communities.gov.uk and/or write to your MP. In the Hertford and Stortford constituency, this is Julie Marson julie.marson.mp@parliament.uk. Remember to add your address and postcode so that Mrs Marson will know that you are one of her constituents.