Development Plan Making - Is There A Case For A Fresh Start?
The process of making local plans has dogged the planning profession since the requirement for them to be mandatory came into being. Prior to then, the process of site allocations and estimating need for development was more pragmatic than approaches undertaken today, and development plan coverage far more haphazard than it is now. Neither of those differences to the current system appeared to cause a slow down in the development process, and arguably, development schemes occurred more quickly then, than now takes place.
The post-war settlement that introduced the planning system deployed a trade off between the nationalisation of development rights and an expectation that planning permission would be granted when applied, unless some demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance could be identified. The onus of identifying harm lay with the local planning authority. That responsibility was the counter part to the presumption in favour of development that applied at all times, with the notable exception of development in green belt.
The post war settlement has long since disappeared. It's finale came in the 1990 Planning Act that introduced the compulsory requirement for local planning authorities to produce local plans. The counter part to that requirement was that the presumption in favour of development would apply to proposals that accorded with the local plan. For proposals that did not, the onus of responsibility for demonstrating the need for a development shifted from the local planning authority to the developer. We live today with that shifted responsibility, but in an absence of development plans that reflect the need of communities.
That is the context in which the current debate concerning the progress of plan making should be considered. The report in today's Planning Magazine (see Online Edition today 16 February) that Keith Holland is echoing the frustration of ministers that the development plan making process is too slow is a fair frustration, but one that fails to explore the fundamental shift in the roles and responsibilities brought about by revising the post war settlement. The planning system has not been given the resources to deliver its side of the equation, whilst the resources available to developers have, of course, always been available.
The development industry has adapted well to the onus of responsibility placed on it to identify the case to support development: either where it is contrary to the development plan; or because the plan is non-existent or out-of-date. Local planning authorities face an invidious task of preparing, updating, reviewing, refreshing, consulting and defending plans. The plan making process is largely loaded against any local planning authority. The system today has tension and conflict as built-in outcomes, far from any intended consequences.
There are many interesting responses on the Planning Magazine web site (see "Comments") to the suggestion that Ministers are frustrated with delays. Most of the responses rightly point to the sheer number of regulatory and procedural changes that have and continue to affect the plan making process. There remains, however, a fundamental truth that plan making has failed to address the shift in responsibility between the right to develop and right to refuse planning permission. If local plans are to be the medium by which that responsibility is transcribed, local planning authorities have to explore the options available to produce documents that support their positions.
The speech by Keith Holland alludes to the possibility of a new future of planning lite – development control by neighbourhood plans. Most local planning authorities would prefer a more strategic and forward thinking approach to meeting the needs of development than is envisaged in nearly all neighbourhood plans that have been produced to date. (And so too - one expects - would the development industry). To avoid the scenario alluded to by Keith Holland, the time might have come to refocus the whole plan making approach to a more simplified model. It is difficult to see how plan making can reply properly to the revised settlement of the modern era, now that the post-war settlement has long disappeared, whilst it juggles with development pressures and wider social concerns. Planning today is far more complex than the system envisaged by the pioneers.
There has not been an adequate response since the 1990 Act from central government from any party as to how the plan making system should respond to the pressures and expectations placed upon it. Perhaps that time has now come. Be frustrated - yes - but look afresh too at what the system needs.
*Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any part of Savills plc or any of its associated companies, nor are any assumptions made reflective of the position of Savills plc and its associated companies.