We can and we must build back better: The un-answered question posed by the Government’s Planning Reforms

Last week, Robert Jenrick gave a speech to the Local Government Association. The text of the speech can be found here. It is worth reading, not least as it provides some clues as to how MHCLG’s planning reform package is evolving.

Today’s Planning Resource features two excellent articles that focus on that evolution: one on the potential implications for ‘zoning’ and one on infrastructure funding (featuring IM’s very own Claire Petricca-Riding).?I can thoroughly recommend them. This post, however, is going to focus on something slightly different.

The thrust of Jenrick’s speech can be summed up in one line:?“We can and we must build back better.”

“Building back better” has become a bit of a slogan for this Government. Along with ‘Levelling up’ it appears in almost every speech given by a cabinet minister these days. However, to date, it is not entirely clear what it means. So, what does Jenrick’s speech tell us about the Government’s vision for our future? What, does ‘better’ actually look like?

There is a series of bullet points in the speech itself:

• More good jobs.
• Better infrastructure.
• Better access to skills and training.
• More, greener, beautiful homes - and more homes for young people and families to own.
• Reinvigorated towns, cities and high streets that are fit for the 21st century.

Which sounds utopian, if somewhat lacking in detail.?When you read the rest of the speech, however, things become a little clearer. When it comes to the planning system 'better' seems to mean less regulated and, almost entirely, housing focused.

Jenrick promised: "It will be for councils to determine how to provide the homes their areas need, with communities having a greater voice from the very start of the planning process" but he fails to mention employment land, industrial spaces, logistics, transportation or any of the myriad other development types necessary for a functioning community.

High streets are mentioned, but again, through the lens of housing. Jenrick states that:

"Through substantial planning reforms promoting greater flexibility – changes to Use Class Order and permitted development rights – that have enabled offices to become cafés, hairdressers or yoga studios and, if derelict or empty, homes. Companies like John Lewis are now responding to bringing homes and gentle density to urban areas. In general, this is a good thing and we should all be embracing it. None of us want to see homes being built on green fields, even less so on the greenbelt. So, if we can use these flexibilities to build homes in our towns and city centres, that must be to the benefit of everyone."

Even the heading for the part of the speech that deals with planning reform is "planning / housing". There is talk of design codes, local control and council led developments; but again with a very distinct slant towards housing developments. Housing developments aimed at first time buyers.

The speech plays heavily on the need for housing for the young, stating: "Despite all the polls showing that the vast majority of people in this country aspire to own their home, by the age of 30 those born between 1981 and 2000 are half as likely to be homeowners as those born between 1946 and 1965." and "We shouldn’t accept that home ownership should be reserved only for the lucky few. Those born into privilege or born within a previous generation." but fails to make any mention of the role that specialist housing for the elderly can make to the housing stock.

There is a commitment to Net Zero and Biodiversity Net Gain, but it feels very much like a passing reference rather than a bold vision for a green development industry. Similarly, the references to infrastructure feel somewhat lacking.

Jenrick states that the Government's planning reforms "will provide greater clarity; replacing complex and quite opaque Section 106 agreements with much more predictable, transparent levies which will be locally set, locally levied which greater flexibility for your as councils to determine how they are spend. That will ensure that more land value uplift is captured for public good, ensuring you as councils have greater revenue to fund more affordable and social housing."

Whilst this may sound great in theory, in practice, the Government looks like it intends to replace a mechanism for securing infrastructure delivery with one purely aimed at obtaining infrastructure funding. In the words of my Head of Department, "the government is missing the point of section 106 obligations”.*

Replacing s.106 Agreements with a pure revenue generation tool places the burden of delivering infrastructure entirely on the public sector - which does not necessarily have the same priorities (or sense of urgency) as local communities when it comes to infrastructure delivery.

Recent investigations by Property Week have revealed that many Councils are sitting on large pots of CIL funding, which has yet to even be allocated to an infrastructure project, yet alone spent. This money was raised for local infrastructure and is ring fenced for its delivery. The Planning White Paper makes no such promises to ring-fence the revenue raised by CIL's replacement - indeed the Government proposes allowing Councils to use infrastructure funding to provide other political priorities - such as lowering Council Tax - once 'core infrastructure' obligations had been met. The White Paper does not define 'core infrastructure' but it is distinctly possible that the Government's definition could differ from that of local residents.

To quote the Handmaid's Tale for a moment “Better never means better for everyone... It always means worse, for some.”** This will almost certainly be true for the Government's planning reforms, although we will have to wait until the draft bill is published before we can tell what this Government's version of 'better' looks like .... and who the winners and losers might be.

* see Claire's comments in the Planning Resource article linked above. She is very wise, as always!

** Margaret Attwood