In a pickle over planning reform

For any architectural practice, large or small, trying to find your way around the ever-changing and expanding labyrinth of planning controls can be a challenging experience. Never more so than at the present, following the new coalition government's plans to reform, yet again, the planning system in England.

Recent reforms

The last round of reforms were intended to make the system faster and simpler. For plan-making, the idea behind the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 was that by scrapping county structure plans, which were seen by many as overlapping and contradictory, and allowing planning authorities to prepare a suite of streamlined local development plan documents, around 80 per cent would be able to produce a new-style core strategy within just three years. Unfortunately, however, the figure turned out to be nearer to 8 per cent. The new process was criticised for being overcomplicated and repetitive, resulting in consultation fatigue and delays. While amended regulations and guidance issued in 2008 have cut down the number of formal plan-making stages and are less prescriptive, progress by many authorities in adopting development plans remains painfully slow and continues to be beset by procedural setbacks.

The planning application process has also been the subject to a flurry of 'red tape busting' reviews and reforms, designed to cut down on unnecessary paperwork and delays, and to make the system fairer and more responsive. The Kate Barker review of land use planning and the report by Rod Eddington on the reform of major transport infrastructure planning, both in 2006, resulted in the establishment of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) to deal with nationally significant infrastructure projects, as well as other changes such as a new kind of roof tax in the form of a community infrastructure levy. The Killian Pretty Review, which followed in November 2008, and the slightly misleadingly titled Penfold Review of non-planning consents in July 2010, made further recommendations to simplify the development management process.

And yet despite all these 'improvements', for most people the planning process remains as baffling and as complicated as ever. For architects, on a day-to-day basis this is probably most evident in the sheer volume of specialist reports, assessments and sometimes legal agreements that are often now required just to get a planning application validated and registered by a local authority, let alone approved. Coupled with a target-driven culture where planning officers are reluctant to negotiate once an application has been submitted, and the plethora of planning policies at both local and national level, it is hardly surprising that those who engage in the planning process become frustrated and confused.

Move towards Localism

So what further reforms are the new government proposing? Well, as the secretary of state for communities and local government, Eric Pickles, has explained the key word is 'localism'. This means apparently: “allowing communities to shape their neighbourhoods and share in the benefits”. With what many believe was indecent haste and by dubious means, in July Pickles announced that all existing regional strategies would be revoked prior to their formal abolition by the new Decentralisation and Localism Act, the bill for which will be introduced into parliament later this year. Mr Pickles's complaint is that the top-down system of setting housing figures doesn't work and that such matters should instead be decided by local communities. However, in what now appears to be a strategic planning policy vacuum, a 30-strong alliance of national bodies and interest groups, including the RIBA and RTPI, has warned the government that in its reforms it must not lose sight of the bigger picture and the need for “larger than local” planning. And one major house-builder has gone as far as instigating legal proceedings claiming that the abolition of regional spatial strategies is unlawful.

Other changes proposed include scrapping the new IPC, although the fast track process for national infrastructure will remain, but with ministers taking the decision. Further measures to streamline and simplify the preparation of local development documents are also expected. In addition, government planning policy statements will be recast as a single national planning framework, the appeals and enforcement regimes will be overhauled and some existing secondary legislation on planning procedure will be consolidated.

But perhaps the most radical initiatives are plans to provide financial incentives for planning authorities to grant permission for new homes, with the monies being used to fund local infrastructure improvements or new facilities, and to empower local communities under the Big Society agenda – the so-called Community Right to Build programme. Exactly how these schemes will work is not yet known, although they will shortly be the subject of government consultation. The intention, however, is clear. Local communities are to play a much bigger role in the provision of new housing within their areas, which in the case of villages will require the holding of an annual referendum to decide on grassroots housing needs and projects. Controversially, the government has indicated that the Community Right to Build programme would, in part at least, bypass the traditional planning process.

It remains to be seen whether the new government's latest reforms will help to deliver new development expeditiously and, in particular, the much needed housing that is required. Or whether local communities, or coalitions of communities, will be able to rise above the NIMBYism that has been so prevalent in the past. Many in the planning profession fear that new development, already suffering from the crippling effects of the recession, will be further stifled, with little being built anywhere. Indeed, following recent government announcements, some planning authorities have already withdrawn their emerging plans in order to look again at things like housing figures and site allocations.

Keep up!

The constant upheaval in the planning process places considerable demands on those who come up against it, in whatever role. It is important that architects and other practitioners understand how the planning system works, in order to use the system to their advantage, to get positive results quickly and to minimise costs for their clients. Or to simply recognise those actions or proposed developments that are unlikely to succeed or be commercially viable. In doing all this, it is vital that architects keep up to speed with the latest changes.

Philip Moren BA(Hons) MRTPI is a planning consultant and regular writer on planning matters. He is co-author of the RIBA Good Practice Guide: Negotiating the Planning Maze. The views expressed in this article are entirely his own.

Related NBS information:

Articles:

• Sustainability and the planning process
• The future of planning
• Infrastructure planning

Selected links:

• Town and country planning, general

September 2010

ViewAllArticles

BackToTop