Labour Plans a Reform of the Planning System
by Robert Gillespie BA(hons) MRTPI | Managing Director | Tuesday 9th July 2024
It was well trailed before the election. Rachel Reeves (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) has now however formally announced the intended reform of the English planning system. For too long seen as being one of the more detrimental obstacles to growth, we are now to experience a further review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) with the intention of stimulating economic growth through increased house building and investment in infrastructure. Not only will national housing targets be “reintroduced” but the Secretary of State will be intervening more frequently in decisions on strategic housing and infrastructure projects such as renewable energy. We are also promised some 300 additional planners to increase greater performance within local planning authorities. While this is welcome, it is hard to understand where this influx of assistance is going to come from, given the profession-wide shortage being experienced in both the public and private sectors. It is also more likely that something like 2,500 planners are needed now, given the purging and haemorrhaging of planning departments staff over the last 10-15 years.
The last round of changes to the NPPF were introduced by Michael Gove last December, with an intention to persuade everyone that the government remained committed to significantly boosting the supply of housing while at the same time introducing a series of policy wording changes which even the Byzantine emperors would have struggled to comprehend. More fundamentally however, the 2023 NPPF introduced the means to avoid the delivery of an authority’s fully assessed level of housing in areas where there were considered to be “exceptional circumstances”. The example of such a potential circumstance cited within the NPPF was, to say the least, bizarre. But we know all too well what was really being anticipated but not stated within the text i.e. political resistance. This was the first time since the birth of the planning system in 1947, that a national government had walked away from seeking to provide enough homes to meet society’s needs.
Many shire authorities were however at the same time excused the national minimum 5-years’ residential land supply requirement being only tasked with demonstrating a 4 years’ supply – had they reached certain stages in the production of a local plan. While this seemingly innocent carrot was dangled to stimulate local plan production, the more cynical of anti-development authorities, used this as an opportunity to refuse residential applications which had previously been regarded as technically acceptable there being no adverse impacts which significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits assessed in the context of national policy. These applications were however perceived as locally unpopular and a return to Committee (as the various s.106 agreements had remained incomplete) before last May’s local elections, presented local councillors with a timely vote winner.
While we will see whether a Labour version of the NPPF (their very first attempt) revisits the 4 year and 5-year minimum residential land supply requirements, there are other fundamental obstacles to improving planning. First is predictability. Serious commercial investment craves predictability. For too long planning has been the “plaything” of the politicians at both local and national level. They simply cannot commit to medium-to-long term decisions particularly in relation to big ticket infrastructure. A worthwhile planning system must be predictable. A new Labour version of the NPPF must instil confidence in being prepared to make policy and take difficult decisions which will endure beyond the short term.
But how, in any event, can such infrastructure be delivered without advanced planning and coordination? Will a Labour government therefore reintroduce regional planning? No mention of it in the Chancellor’s speech. How therefore will any new towns be planned and co-ordinated, let alone delivered, without a regional resolution of the inevitable consequences – commencing with a rational site selection process. No mention of this either in the Chancellor’s speech.
What did Labour’s performance reveal last time it was in power? Some will no doubt recall the former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott’s abandonment of one function of the planning system as being a rational means to “predict and provide” the homes, infrastructure, employment land etc., which our society needed. It was then replaced with “plan, monitor and manage”. But how can you plan without anticipating and attempting to predict what will be needed? So far as I am aware, no one in government ever attempted to square that particular circle. Similarly, Prescott’s “brownfield first” policy (60% of housing to be on brown field and then 40% on greenfield) led to a collapse in housing completion rates not seen since the 1920s. Labour as well as Conservative administrations have fallen into the trap of trying to appease the NIMBYs while championing the house building cause.
We will see if this Labour administration really does confront the NIMBYs on the basis that the housing crisis is a national crisis and is, together with the need to deliver infrastructure, of far greater importance to the beneficial and much sought after growth of the national economy. Will the national interest prevail over the call to support localism and “parish pump” politics? We’ll see.
To be an effective NPPF, it needs to be positively written, clear of the ambiguities and complications of the current version, quickly consulted upon and delivered, if it is to have any chance of success within the first term of office. Good luck and God speed.
The views expressed are entirely his own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Impact Planning Services Ltd.
