I'm giving the Planning White Paper 7/10. Here's why....

Initial thoughts on the ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper

Wow. Ambitious.

Cards on the table; I trained as a Town Planner at the Bartlett and ran the Planning and Development Department of a major city authority, so I like to think I know a bit about the theory and practice of planning. I’m also a classic ‘gamekeeper turned poacher’, because for the last 15 years I’ve been securing planning consents, so I’ve seen the system at work from both ends of the barrel.

It’s fair to say that I’m not a great fan of our current planning system. I agree that it has become incredibly complex, burdensome and pedantic. I certainly didn’t join the profession to choose which brick a housebuilder should use.

So here are my initial thoughts about the WP, good, bad and indifferent.

1.      It certainly doesn’t lack ambition. There’s a lot of upfront rhetoric about not being fit for purpose for the modern economy, so let’s tear it down and start again. Boris uses the helpful analogy of a building that’s been patched and repaired, and says it’s now time for demolition and a new build. But this is a very ‘Green’ White Paper, relatively light on specifics. I’ll applaud ambition but I’m concerned that the tear it down completely and start again approach will get bogged down and fail.

2.      Boris wants a million new homes by the end of this Parliament, but tearing the system down to build a new one will take what, five years? A couple of years for the legislation and then a breakneck 30 months to produce new Local Plans……  The WP sort of acknowledges the problems this may cause and proposes a series of improvements which it expects to help things along. But if you’re busy fixing the existing system, you’re soaking up capacity which is needed to build a new one. I’m concerned that you can’t do both. And there might be an alternative.

3.      At the heart of the new system is…..the local community…… mmmm. That will be the self-appointed community leaders who have the time and the inclination to oppose things then. I know there are, by exception, some very good Neighbourhood Plans, but the majority are NIMBYs on steroids. How representative are they (they’re not), how can they become more inclusive (even if they wanted to be), how can they resource good work (any new money?), what voice for the business community (other than saying ‘no’ to developments in their own communities), and aren’t local Councillors the democratically elected representatives anyhow??? 

4.      You’re already hearing all the usual suspects lining up to slate the WP although I suspect very few of them have read it in detail or really thought about it yet.  It was particularly disappointing the hear the Nat Fed grumbling about the loss of S106 affordable housing, instead of acknowledging the frustrations of the current system in the HA world.  There’s a more constructive role to play Kate; here’s an opportunity to make sure that Local Plans support a quantum leap in the delivery of affordable homes. Please take the chance. Oh, and PD rights will at last have to make an affordable homes contribution and be subject to some quality control. Let’s all applaud that!

5.      I like the notion of areas being designated for ‘growth’ or ‘renewal’, though I suspect the stigma of being designated for renewal will lead to unnecessary objection. The third category is ‘protected’. We need more than these three words. What about ‘stable’, i.e. the vast majority of our towns and cities where modest home extensions or infill development will continue to be permitted but which aren’t in need of renewal or growth? Will they become ‘protected’ and therefore become more difficult to build in?

6.      Zoning areas for development certainty is a good idea, but please let’s learn some lessons from past attempts. Anyone remember ‘Simplified Planning Zones’? I pioneered one of the very few in an Industrial area in Merseyside in the 1990’s. With the benefit of a long view, what’s worked well and what hasn’t? We’ve been there before (sort of), so let’s learn and do better than last time around.

7.      A big ‘yes’ from me for more technology in the sector. Planning has done some great work, and the national Planning Portal and interactive Local Plans were ground-breaking 15 years ago, but we should have gone much further, so I wholeheartedly welcome this drive. But beware of big tech. I’ve seen lots of great innovation sadly crushed or monetized over the years.  So please, ensure free access to critical information.

8.      There’s an enhanced role foreseen for Homes England and I’ll give a huge welcome to that. But it misses an open goal; give them planning powers on their own land. There can be an obligation to consult with local planners, but put the boot on the other foot. There’s probably a simple way of doing this (I’m not going to try to be a lawyer) as they’ve inherited most of the powers of the old development corporations. It’s an easy win.

9.      And yes, you’ve guessed my next point; what about rolling out a new generation of proactive planning bodies? New Towns and Development Corporations are surely ‘no-brainers’, and although they don’t necessarily need to be feature in a Planning WP, a reference to an intent to establish them would surely make sense. Another missed opportunity?

10.  And finally, the subsuming of S106 into a repurposed CIL. I’m sure I’m not the only one to observe the very heavy irony of CIL being given plaudits by a certain Mr Jenrick, but hey-ho, that’s the reality of politics and planning. Let’s all be clear, and subject to devil in the detail, that this is a good thing.

So, what’s my overall impression? I’m going to give it 7/10. 

They need to be clearer about the balance of reform vs demolition of the existing system otherwise they’ll get bogged down.  Maybe use the building analogy of a major transformation (think British Museum rather than British Library) and plan for that, rather than planning to patch and repair pending demolition.

They need to pass the legislation at pace and I worry they won’t have the capacity to do that job well.  

They need to ensure that community planning processes are genuinely representative.  

They need to get on with the innovation and new technology. 

And they need to score the open goals and be more pro-active in making development happen in certain areas.

But I’ll close with a word of warning. Housebuilders and developers will be watching how this progresses like hawks. They’ll be looking to see whether they accelerate or slow their plans to game the changes (witness the recent CIL affair in Tower Hamlets), so the next steps are crucial. 

I just hope they get it right. And that needs the profession to get behind the changes and not carp from the side-lines.