Fixing a broken planning system
The much trailed Conservative Green Paper on planning is with us at last. The new approach is badged as ‘open source’ planning. Borrowed from the world of IT, this concept suggests a relatively unstructured environment where contributors not only collaborate but also barter.

Perhaps the analogy doesn’t quite stack up, but the approach is certainly transformational and ambitious in its outlook, promoting radical change. The basic premise is that the existing Government’s centralised and bureaucratic system is broken and needs to be replaced by one more firmly rooted in greater civic engagement and collaborative democracy at the local level.

A risky strategy
The Green Paper places planning firmly on the political agenda. We welcome this, given the critical role planning has to play in rebuilding a strong economy and facilitating investment and growth. We certainly need to improve upon our cumbersome, over engineered and glacially paced planning system. But does the ‘open source’ approach strike the right balance between diagnosis and cure?

A critical concern is whether there is really an appetite for such radical change when the development industry and LPAs have already endured years of intervention. Change fatigue may have already set in and perhaps what is needed is a more settled regulatory planning landscape. Radical change at a time of economic downtown might be considered a somewhat risky strategy.

It is clearly desirable to engage local communities in policy formulation and planning decisions. However there is a real risk that pushing the localism theme too far will serve to stifle development and slow down the decision making process.

Localism or nimbyism?
Third party appeals are clearly a step too far and should be resolutely opposed. There is surely no proven need for them in a plan led system in which local communities can participate, and where there is extensive preapplication consultation. We would also be very worried about the idea of developers compensating immediate neighbours for loss of amenity in order to remove their objections. Both initiatives are potentially open to abuse and give undue prominence to ‘nimby’ views as a means to frustrate development, which would otherwise be acceptable in planning terms. The new ‘bottom up’ collaborative and democratic approach to local plan preparation might have a similar distorting effect. The risk would be that local people focus on what they want (or don’t want) for their own neighbourhood, rather than on priorities for the wider plan area.

Worryingly, the Green Paper is silent on the role of the development industry, business and industry in the new plan making process. LPAs can of course also display protectionist tendencies. Given this, the removal of the power of the Planning Inspectorate to alter a local plan would be regrettable.

A new presumption in favour
The counterweight to increased local control over the planning system is the introduction of a new presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is promoted as a ‘guiding principle’ of the new planning system, but the permissive approach still requires applicants to demonstrate conformity with the local plan (and its definition of sustainable development) to pay a locally determined tariff, and also to show that an adequate public consultation exercise has been carried out.

Those promoting larger schemes in particular will need to devote greater attention and resources to community engagement activities. It is evident that the Conservatives, in placing a new emphasis on achieving high standards of architecture and design, will also require applicants to collaborate with local people in formulating scheme proposals.

Consolidated planning guidance
Though abandoning the regional tier of control may be a step too far for some, the aim to introduce a simple and consolidated national planning policy framework is good news. If only the policy drafters can resist the temptation of merely transferring the detail to annexes and detailed guidance notes!

In conclusion
No one can safely predict the outcome of the forthcoming election, but it is clear that if the Conservatives do take control we can expect some very significant changes to the existing planning system. Some proposals may be driven by simple electioneering and these may eventually fall away or be modified. Others will gain momentum and be followed through to implementation. There is no doubt, however, that developers will need to closely monitor the emergence of operational guidance, related consultation opportunities and the detail of transitional arrangements.

KEY PROPOSALS

National - A single document setting out a consolidated national planning framework subject to Parliamentary approval.

Regional - Abolition of regional planning mechanisms including Regional Spatial Strategies, the Regional Planning Bodies and national and regional building targets. No statutory planning guidance between the national planning framework and Local Plans.

Local – LPAs to prepare ‘bottom up’ Local Plans, engaging residents at the neighbourhood level. Local Plans completed within a prescribed period and removal of Planning Inspectors’ power to change plans.

Infrastructure – IPC to be amalgamated with the Planning Inspectorate to form a new Major Infrastructure Unit. Decisions to be made by the Secretary of State. For local infrastructure, unitary or upper tier authorities to take a strategic view and lead in preparing Infrastructure Plans.

Appeals – Sweeping changes to the appeals process. Introduction of a third party right of appeal and significant curtailment of grounds for appeal. Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development -Introduction of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Permission to be generally dependent on conformity with local plan, payment of agreed local tariff and demonstration of public consultation. In the case of significant neighbourhood objection a formal assessment would be required, and to avoid this householders may be compensated through voluntary agreements.

Housing – Option 1 estimates used as base line in planning for housing requirements and for maintaining a five year land supply. No affordable housing targets imposed. LPAs to decide level of provision appropriate for the area. Matching of council tax receipts on new housing and support for Local Housing Trusts bringing forward small scale schemes outside the local planning process.

Planning Obligations – CIL to be replaced by a single unified local tariff set by LPAs through local plans. Planning obligations confined to their original function of securing site specific remediation and adaptation.

Other proposals include – Needs test re-introduced for retail development - Competition a factor for local plans – Parking standards set locally – Housing density targets abolished – Gardens not classified as brownfield land - Community involvement in design for larger developer schemes - Predetermination rules for councillors scrapped – Architectural and design standards in local plans – More protection for best farmland – Further permitted development under consideration – Amendment of Use Classes.