The Government, in its White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’, has announced radical proposals for transforming the planning system in England. Essentially, the new system would be based on a zoning approach – areas of growth, renewal and protection, supported by development codes. More on this later, but first it is worth considering if the premise for putting forward such radical change now is sound.
The Housing Crisis – A Failure of Planning or a Failure of Delivery?
Planning is about shaping and managing the built and natural environment as the setting for current and future generations to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. The breadth of its role is recognised to some degree in the White Paper. However, in his introduction the Prime Minster squarely pins the long-run under-delivery of new homes on the planning system. Is this the right starting place?
Persistent under-delivery has been a curse of the UK housing market for decades, and much of this stems from the composition of those building homes. Until the early 1980s, total housing delivery was between 250,000 and 350,000 a year, 40% of which was built by the public sector. After this it reduced to zero as councils ceased to build when the borrowing cap was imposed and the deficit was not made up by other sectors. As a result, we have had close to 40 years of persistent under-supply, resulting in the crisis of affordability we see today.
Beyond the public sector, the make-up of the private housebuilding sector is also crucial. The contribution of SME housebuilders has significantly declined from 40% to 12% since the late 1980s. As considered by the Letwin Review and highlighted elsewhere, the resulting homogeneity of housing delivered by a small number of large companies manifests itself in slow build out rates. This has resulted in a significant gap between the number of homes allocated and approved each year, and those built out.
In addition, the economics of delivery are a complicating factor and crucial to determining the quality of places that result. Financial and investment models often prioritise efficiency of delivery over quality. Geographic differences in prosperity and the resultant development values, and public sector resources to adopt and maintain the public realm are all factors that also militate against creating the kind of places we aspire to.
So, yes, planning is crucial, but is it the principal reason?
Cultural Factors – No Two Places are the Same
It is notable that the Prime Minister and White Paper have cited delivery rates in Germany, the Netherlands and France. Culturally, people in these countries value higher taxation rates to deliver quality of life benefits. There is also greater decentralisation of funding, a more pro-active role for local authorities in guiding development and a greater emphasis on long-term investment. The market is also more diverse, with self-build, community-led and SME housebuilding much bigger contributors, reducing the reliance on a small number of powerful housebuilders.
So, is this a fair comparison? Perhaps not. But are there pointers for the UK?
The Proposed Solution: Growth, Renewal, Protect
Borrowing from overseas examples, the White Paper proposes a ‘simplified’ zonal system based on three broad land use designations within streamlined local plans. Based on their prioritisation for development:
- Growth areas which are defined as ‘suitable for substantial development’ comprising a mix of green and brownfield sites where there is scope for significant change. These would be realised through a form of outline permission, with the consent regime focused on detailed technical matters and generally guided by a design code.
- Renewal areas which are identified as being “suitable for [smaller scale] development”, generally covering more typical, less dynamic built-up areas. Automatic consent will be granted where proposals meet design and other ‘prior approval’ requirements, or a speeded-up application process for other proposals.
- Protected areas, which are subject to higher levels of protection due to their environmental or cultural characteristics (Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Conservation Areas etc.). Here, development proposals would come forward via planning applications as at present, unless allowed by permitted development rights.
This is supplemented by a Fast Track for Beauty, which promotes compliance with design codes, or encourages popular and replicable forms of development. ’Generic’ development management policies would be defined at the national level only, to avoid unnecessary duplication.
The Right Solution?
There is much to be welcomed in the new White Paper. As with many such systems, the planning system has metamorphosised over time, recalibrated incrementally by successive governments, creating an at times confusing mix of legislation, regulations, policy and guidance, alongside obscure terms like “the tilted balance”. It clearly has its failings, not least its resistance to automation, lack of clarity for the layperson, seeming vulnerability to the whims of local politics and a reactive rather than proactive approach. The current system if discretionary, is based on a mix of policy and precedent, which can make it highly opaque to the uninitiated.
On the face of it, shifting the balance towards a system that emphasises ‘net gain’ over ‘no net harm’, frontloading the process and empowering planners to become more visionary, design literate and adept at managing new technology is all positive.
However, the built environment is a complex organism and trying to over-simplify the management of the built environment in this way at best leaves questions unanswered; or at worst could result in a conflicted, overly centralised and under-resourced system that does little to create better places, deliver housing or address other significant issues we face, such as climate change.
Incorporating ‘discretionary’ elements as with the current system eg. in protected areas or where ‘codes/ pattern books’ are not followed, and ‘as of right’ elements, could result in a confusing hybrid, the nuances and ‘unintended consequences’ of which planning consultants, lawyers and others will be picking over for years to come – until further guidance is introduced (alas, more bureaucracy!).
Design codes, while a useful tool, can involve significant amounts of time and expertise to prepare. It is highly questionable whether many local authorities would have the resources and skills to create these – which could cover large parts of their administrative area – any time soon. As an (albeit extreme) example, the New York code is over 4,000 pages long, while UK examples can extend to hundreds of pages. Given the mooted 30-month timeframe to prepare the local plans plus supporting design codes, it is debatable whether this will be possible for many authorities given the cuts imposed over recent years. If not, then coding would revert to a ‘National Model Design Code’, surely undermining the emphasis on local context and character around which the new system is framed?
What about the environment? The world is facing a climate emergency, and yet we have a system predicated on ‘build, build’ build’. Surely a more sensible approach would prioritise building re-use and adaptation, given the proportion of greenhouse gas emissions made up of embodied carbon in our built environment (a ‘presumption in favour of re-use’ perhaps?). There is also no mention of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which surely should sit at the apex of UK policy making relating to the built environment and underpin any ‘sustainable development test’.
Elements of the new system tip their hat towards locally led development (local design codes, neighbourhoods plans etc.), yet others indicate a tendency towards further centralisation (nationally determined housing targets for example). If the latter is to be the case, then surely – as long argued by the RTPI – we should be considering a national spatial plan to guide the overall strategy and inform housing targets at the regional and local level – not a new idea (at least at the regional level), but an approach we appear to have been clawing our way back to in recent years.
Clarity and Certainty
There is great uncertainty at present in terms of the economy but also our patterns of living and working and what this means for the built environment. There is therefore risk in bringing in such significant change when we are grappling with what the world and society may look like and when resources are under such strain. Reassurance and clarity could, however, be brought by a stronger evidence base and greater depth of analysis, for example looking at systems in other countries and what works well and what doesn’t. In this respect, much could be learned from the Raynsford review published by the Town and Country Planning Association in 2018.
What is Missing – ‘The Carrot and The Stick’
Returning to our initial point, there is much in the document that assumes planning has all the answers. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In addition, a welcome counterpoint to streamlining planning could be incentivising delivery – ‘the carrot and the stick’. Elements of the document do allude to this, but without proposing meaningful solutions. Some (admittedly oft-touted) ideas could include:
- A transparent, GIS-based, open source map of land ownership available free of charge to de-incentivise unnecessary land banking.
- A ‘use it or lose it’ condition on all new permissions, whereby any development not meaningfully commenced within a given timeframe (eg. 18 months) would be revoked.
- A tax on land ownership, to encourage the use of vacant and redundant sites where permissions exist.
- Greater devolution of finance and powers to enable local authorities to take a more active role in facilitating delivery and making investments that help underpin local quality of life.
This should also be supplemented by greater powers for local authorities to assemble sites, including streamlined compulsory purchase procedures. Combined with more investment in local authority housebuilding – which has had a welcome renaissance in recent years – and more funding for community-led development above and beyond just allocating sites for that purpose. Combined with the welcome proposal to break up larger sites for multiple developers, this would help to increase competition, diversify supply and address some of the more fundamental delivery issues we face.
Without this, there is a risk the White Paper will result in more unnecessary planning upheaval, without tackling the root cause. That said, if the White Paper provides the basis for a planning system that moves from being somewhat reactionary to providing a more positive and visionary force, that is to be welcomed.
Please keep an eye out for future articles relating to learning from other countries and the making of Bath and Belgravia.
- Written by Mel Clinton and Mike Fox.