Planning for a Digital Revolution: MHCLG pilots tools for digital plan-making

Given recent headlines, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Planning for the Future White Paper was primarily designed to enrage the Conservative back benches. Whilst many of the proposals in the White Paper are both radical and controversial*, it also contained several policy ideas that were broadly welcomed by a broad cross-section of respondents.

Earlier today, MHCLG took its first steps towards implementing one of these policies, by announcing the launch of a pilot scheme (or 'pathfinder programme') to test the use of digital tools in the creation of local plans. The ten local authorities involved in the pilot are:

1. Newcastle City Council and Gateshead Council
2. Stratford upon Avon District Council and Warwick District Council
3. Plymouth City Council, South Hams District Council and West Devon Borough Council
4. Dacorum Borough Council
5. Broxbourne Borough Council
6. Birmingham City Council
7. East Suffolk Council
8. London Borough Hounslow
9. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
10. Ashford Borough Council

These ten councils will be involved in testing the digital tools and data standards required to move from our current, paper based, local plan system to the digital "interactive, map-based Local Plans" promised by the White Paper**.

The proposals to digitise local plans, making them both shorter and more accessible, was cautiously welcomed by many respondents to the White Paper consultation. The Home Builders Federation (HBF) stated that :

"One of the reasons many LPAs struggle to keep plans up-to-date is the fact that such documents are seen as complex, all-encompassing documents. Plans frequently contain unnecessary background information or include policies that are not used to guide development or decision-making in any way. Simplification of local plans is, therefore, supported. However, we have some concerns regarding the government’s proposals for such simplification as set out below.

Plans should be online, map-based. It should be possible to determine which policies of a plan apply to any plot of land within the LPA area. However, we believe that consistency between LPAs is essential, particularly adjoining authorities where land designations and policies frequently cross administrative boundaries."

The British Property Federation (BPF) was also cautiously optimistic about the proposal, stating that:

"We broadly support the commitment to digitalisation. Investment is needed in digitalisation in the forthcoming spending review if Government is to move forward swiftly on its ambitions. Such investment will be needed not only in hardware/software, but also in the skills within LPAs, to procure and use digitalised systems".

As someone who has spent much of her professional life trawling through Local Plans and supporting documentation, I am also inclined to be optimistic about a more accessible, map based, digital system. The success of such a system will, however, be heavily dependent on the quality and consistency of the data that is recorded in the new style plans; and how accessible and user-friendly the 'digitised' plans prove to be.

The issue over data is likely to be crucial, as easily accessible, comprehensible information about the performance of our planning system can be difficult to obtain at the moment. Whilst we have information from MHCLG on the number of permissions granted in any given year, and a separate data set is published which tracks the number of housing completions, there is no composite data set which tracks permissions through to completion. Given that the annual permissions data will necessarily include elements of duplication and double-counting (as permissions are amended and sites re-planned to respond to market conditions), without the composite data set, it can be difficult to draw robust conclusions from a comparison between the permissions granted in any given year and the number of housing completions. Such direct comparisons tend to be flawed, if not misleading*^.

This point was picked up, very persuasively, in "Taking stock. The geography of housing need, permissions and completions" *^, which was released last week. The report takes a detailed look at the relationship between the number of permissions granted across England, numbers of completions and levels of housing need - with a view to establishing the pipeline of permissions that would be required to meet the Government's target of 300,000 homes per year by the mid 2020s.

The report makes a number of excellent points, but the conclusion that caught my eye related to the quality of the data that we are currently using to judge the performance of our planning system - and which the Government is using, in part, to justify some of the more controversial aspects of the White Paper.

When considering the quality of the data currently available, the report concluded that:

"10. Work to digitise the planning system should include securing much better data on this issue to inform policy. Our analysis confirms the real difficulty of working with the available data on planning permissions and homes completed. Because of its limitations – which we have not been able to completely overcome – it is easy for those seeking to understand the operation of the planning system to draw the wrong conclusions as to how the planning system impacts on housing delivery. A priority of Government, as part of its efforts towards the digitisation of the planning system, should be to provide an improved system for recording permissions, their relationship to land, and their implementation."

The current pilot provides a real opportunity to address this data gap. If the quality of the data that can be improved, then the detailed proposals for reform that eventually become part of a new Planning Bill are likely to be much better for it.

The question of accessibility is equally important. The new style Local Plans will need to be easily accessible to, and understandable by, a wide range of stakeholders. Everyone from planning professionals to local residents will need to be able to use the system, and navigate the information contained within it. This includes residents who may not have access to the internet at home, or only be able to access it via smartphone, or may simply not be a digital native at all. Ensuring that no one is disenfranchised by a move to 'digital planning' will be incredibly challenging.

That said, if attention is paid to the quality of the data recorded in the new style plans, and the system is designed appropriately, there is a lot to be gained from digitising local plans and making them more user friendly.

Given the importance of effective digitisation to the Government's ability to deliver the rest of its proposed planning reforms, there is a lot riding on the new pilot scheme. We are all, to some extent, now in the hands of the ten pilot authorities.....

PS. To go off topic for a moment, I have also just found out that Rights Community Action have been granted permission to appeal the High Court's dismissal of its challenge to major changes to permitted development rights and the use classes order - which included the creation of Class E; rights to demolish certain commercial buildings and replace them with housing; and the ability to extend upwards to create new housing stock. More on the story can be found here

*such as the move to 'zoning', reducing the ability to object to individual planning applications, and replacing s.106 agreements and CIL with a shiny new 'infrastructure levy'

** para 2.43, Planning for the Future

*^ the reasons for this are set out in some detail in "Taking stock: The geography of housing need, permissions and completions " published in May 21. The report was commissioned by the HBF and the Land Promoters & Developers Federation from Lichfields and is well worth reading in full.