Notes on planning reform: “the algorithm warmed us all up”
You just know it’s a spat about English planning policy when both sides manage to get it wrong at the same time.
A couple of weeks ago, we woke up to that Times front page declaring “Rural areas face threat of 400,000 new homes - New planning targets will force councils to build on greenbelt sites”. The “threat” of “homes”. Run for your lives! Anyway, long-time readers of these pages will have spotted what I’ve been calling the Isle of Wight Fallacy a mile off. For more detail on it see here. It’s wrong. And, as I said last year, the good folks at CPRE who were responsible this work are sophisticated enough to understand that it’s wrong. But they keep pumping it out anyway. And whatever your view on whether new homes are a “threat”, one thing’s for sure: this kind of stuff really damages public confidence in and understanding of the planning system.
Unusually, this time the Ministry decided to fight back. Kudos to them. Because they nailed that Isle of Wight fallacy right off the bat, calling it “deliberately misleading” and pointing out that “the numbers mentioned are a starting point for local councils to help them understand how much housing is needed in their area and are not legally binding”. Bingo. Some clarity. For once. Right? Well, almost. Because the Ministry then said… “Councils draw up a local housing target, taking into account factors including land availability and environmental constraints such as Green Belt.”
And there’s the rub. Because the truly radical idea in the White Paper, as I explained here, is that the baton should no longer be passed down to local planning authorities to layer constraints onto that centrally derived figure. Quite the opposite. It would be Central Government which layers on constraints and decides - authority-by-authority - how much housing goes where.
So… the Ministry’s response to the Times and CPRE - which is similar to Chris Pincher MP’s defence last year - that the standard method for housing does not dictate where homes should go is right. But it’s only right if we’re talking about the current system.
It is totally wrong when it comes to the new regime being consulted on in the White Paper. Under the White Paper, decisions on where new homes are to go certainly will be made by Central Government.
But what of that White Paper? How are things going there?
We’re not far off a year since it was published. 44,000 consultees write in. Number of official Government responses to the consultation? 0. NPPF out for consultation with new zones galore? Nah. A new planning bill to pore over with growth zones, automatic permissions and a new local plan system? Not yet, folks. Proper £££ for achieving some decent reform? Noooooo. We’ve had fleeting comments from politicians and civil servants here and there on how things are going. But concrete proposals? Not a sausage. Which is important when you remember the original idea was that the new generation of local plans would be not just introduced but actually rolled out within this Parliament (so by 2024).
Even without a Planning Bill to read, storm clouds have been gathering. Theresa May and her rebel alliance are back. Energised, so we’re told, by their success in bringing down last year’s “mutant algorithm” - on which see my explainer here - now they’re coming for the Planning Bill. They haven’t read it. But don’t let technicalities like that get in the way. Apparently, they are “better organised now, as the algorithm warmed us all up”. So there we have it. The Government’s got a back-bench uprising on its hands. But we knew that already.
So what’s new? Well, the picture has become more interesting, and more complicated, this morning with the report on “The future of the planning system in England” from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Now. This is a serious piece of work. A long way from some of the nonsensical rants we’ve seen in the press. This is a proper (and sometimes - you have to hand it to them - measured and balanced) critique which has taken evidence from a large number of very serious planoraks. And the Committee has come up with some big ticket findings - some of them are… challenging. Including (to give you a flavour) these recommendations:
The 3-zone system isn’t detailed enough to evaluate properly, but in a nutshell - it isn’t going to work. And if anything, more zones are needed, including a zone of “highly protected” areas alongside those which are merely “protected” (😬).
Ministers also need to explain what’s going to replace the duty to cooperate before they ditch it. The means “devising more effective mechanisms for strategic planning”.
“The Government should extend the 30-month timeframe for the initial production of Local Plans as it is too short for creating new plans from scratch.”
The Government should lay out the evidential basis for its 300,000 housing units a year target and how it will achieve it, both by tenure and by location. Is it too much to hope that the Committee’s been reading Simon Ricketts, who said the same thing last week?
There should still be public consultation on planning applications (of course, if that were so, then the whole function of Growth areas - on which see here - is going to need a pretty drastic re-think).
Big £££ is required before the Planning Bill comes out. MHCLG should seek a £500 million commitment from Treasury over 4 years.
“The Government should set a limit of 18 months following discharge of planning conditions for work to commence on site. If work has not progressed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority then the planning permission may be revoked.”
“The Government should create a C2R class for retirement communities to ensure clarity in the planning process. There should be a statutory obligation that Local Plans identify sites for specialist housing.”
And here’s the kicker: “a review should examine the purpose of the Green Belt, including whether it continues to serve that purpose, how the public understand it, what should be criteria for inclusion, and what additional protections might be appropriate”. I mean. YES. YES. YES.
There’s a lot to digest, but I think we can agree on 1 thing. A program which requires (i) review of the strategic purposes of the Green Belt, (ii) introducing more effective mechanisms for strategic planning, and (iii) £500 million… well it may be a program more likely to work. But it’s one which is just a little bit more challenging to deliver. The Committee’s suggestions add up to a pretty fundamental re-write of the White Paper. Now, of course, this is a just a committee of MPs. They can only produce reports. They can’t re-write the planning system. That’s the Minister’s job.
On the other hand… this is the kind of report which can offer support and cover for those MPs interested in (i) maintaining intellectual integrity, whilst also (ii) voting down a Planning Bill (which, let’s remember, none of us have actually seen yet, but still…). Which creates a political challenge for the Government of an entirely different stripe.
So the storm clouds are gathering, friends. And through all this, we still have no idea what the Government is actually intending to do. Ah, well. More interesting weeks ahead.
I hope you enjoy this blazing 🌞, stay well #planoraks and, of course, #keeponplanning!
