So, after hours of television and forests of newspaper debate, we now know that our country is to be run by the first formal coalition Government for 70 years, made up of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Whilst there has been considerable discussion on how the two parties may resolve differences over electoral reform, nuclear power and taxation reform, less is known on how they may work together in the fields of planning and development.

Philosophy 

Though clearly important to us, the approach of these two parties to planning and development is unlikely to be as central as some other issues and is certainly not a deal breaker to the operation of a future joint Conservative/Lib Dem Government. The Conservatives, have been more forthcoming on their proposals for planning than the Lib Dems and did issue a Green paper on ‘Open Source Planning’ in conjunction with their manifesto, which establishes a blueprint of ideas from the Conservative perspective.

The basic premise of the Conservatives’ approach is that the previous 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. This is a development of David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ concept, which envisages all individuals taking an active part in their communities.

Whilst perhaps the Lib Dems’ manifesto generally was thin on content (certainly in respect of planning and development policies), it is clear that the underlying philosophy of both parties points to a greater emphasis on local determination as opposed to the heavily centralist approach that we have become used to since the election of the Blair Government in 1997.

Indeed, as noted by Liz Peace, Chief Executive of the BPF, prior to the election:

“There is much to be commended in the Lib Dems’ manifesto, even if much of the content around planning seems to have been lifted directly from the Conservatives’ planning green paper”.

What this means in practice is yet to be subject to thorough scrutiny. The cold light of Government is likely to expose a number of unworkable or conflicting approaches.

Major Projects 

Both parties concur in respect of some ‘big ticket’ proposals. Both are opposed to the expansion of Heathrow – which has already been cancelled - and both support the idea of HS2, although whether this remains a ‘priority’ when Messrs Cameron and Clegg get their hands on the Treasury files remains to be seen. Certainly both parties are firmly opposed to Labour’s Infrastructure Planning Commission for dealing with major proposals and the IPC is likely to be a ‘still-born’ idea. However, differences exist on what will replace it. Despite their stated localist approach, the Conservatives favour hybrid parliamentary bills as the means of dealing with major schemes, an approach which still retains a largely central control whereas the Lib Dems simply give a vague commitment to local decision making.

In practice, leaving the type of major project which would have been dealt with by the IPC to local decision making is a naive approach. Few people welcome nationally significant developments on their own doorstep whether these be high speed rail links or major energy generating infrastructure. Whilst the parliamentary bill approach is arguably at odds with the localist agenda, I feel that it is the best option and the Conservative approach is correct.

Intriguingly, HS2 is likely to be a good test of this approach. The political map suggests that the major benefits of HS2 will be experienced by the remaining Labour ‘islands’ of Birmingham, the North West and South/West Yorkshire but the routes will inevitably pass through the Conservative ‘blue sea’ of the Home Counties and rural Midlands where local opposition is likely to be significant. The Conservatives may well prove to be reliant on Labour MPs to push through any proposals against their own back benchers.

Central Government Guidance 

The Conservatives’ Green Paper proposes the replacement of the suite of national planning policy statements (PPSs) with what they see as a simple and consolidated national planning framework setting out national economic and environmental priorities, although these will be supported by ‘simplified’ guidance notes setting out minimum environmental, architectural, design, economic and social standards for sustainable development. Perhaps it is just me, but I am struggling to see a major change from what we have at present. Certainly one area where the Conservatives have said they will impose more central control is in relation to retail development. They have committed to reintroduce the needs test and to go further to enable local authorities to take into account competition issues in drawing up local plans.

The Lib Dems’ manifesto, in line with its general approach, is silent on the detail of these issues, apart from also proposing a local competition test.

One area that the Conservatives and the Lib Dems certainly agree on is in relation to setting ambitious carbon reduction targets for 2050. As such, we can expect both parties to be fully supportive of proposals for further renewable energy schemes.Indeed both parties have undertaken to investigate options for the expansion of community based renewable energy proposals via tax breaks. Both have also committed to using public money to convert former shipyards in Scotland and the North East of England to produce infrastructure for the renewable energy industry. I think we can expect to see a proliferation of wind turbines across the countryside and along the coast in the coming years.

The only area where the two governing parties will most likely fall out is over the issue of nuclear energy – to which the Lib Dems are in principle opposed - and potentially the building of more efficient fossil fuel power stations. This has been reflected in the agreement drawn up by the two coalition parties where nuclear power is one of those areas where the Lib Dems will not be constrained by the coalition.

We can also expect a continuing commitment to the energy efficiency targets for residential and commercial buildings something which the HBF and others have, hoped will go away. However, both the Conservatives and Lib Dems have recognised the financial barriers to securing energy efficiency in older buildings imposed by the VAT system and have committed to reviewing this.

Finally, both parties have endorsed the concept of developer tariffs, although the Conservatives feel that a single tariff should replace what they see as the complicated CIL system. It is also clear that they will be less accommodating than Labour on leaving it to local authorities to decide whether to impose the tariffs or retain S106 agreements. S106s will be removed, except for site specific remediation and adaptation, and all authorities will be pushed down the tariff route although affordable and social housing will be exempt from the tariffs.

Regional Planning 

A further area of common ground between the Conservatives and Lib Dems is in respect of Regional Planning and the RDAs. Both parties are opposed to the setting of regional house building targets and we can expect to see the demise of the Regional Spatial Strategies in the coming weeks. The Conservatives are seeking the outright abolition of the RDAs, although the Lib Dems (in true fence sitting style) would prefer to leave the future of the RDAs to the electorate of the areas they represent. Even then, the RDAs would be refocused to concentrate solely on economic development. In practice, given the inevitable pressure to cut public spending, I predict that the RDAs will be disbanded without too much objection from the Lib Dems. Perhaps having seen the writing on the wall prior to the election, Tom Riordan, the head of Yorkshire Forward, the RDA for Yorkshire and Humberside, has already secured himself the post of Chief Executive of Leeds City Council.

Local Planning 

It is at the local level that perhaps the most radical (and problematic) changes are proposed in the Conservative Green paper. Again the Lib Dem manifesto is largely silent on detail, although many if not all of the changes are likely to find a modicum of support. These may be summarised as follows:
 

• Amend the use classes order to allow the use of land and buildings for any purpose allowed in the local plan.
• Local plans are to be ‘bottom up’, derived from the aspirations of the local population.
• Introduce a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ - provided a tariff is also paid.
• Ensure that ‘significant local projects’ are designed through a collaborative process involving the neighbourhood.
• A programme of ‘fast track’ consents where agreement is reached with neighbours. This can involve the making of payments to offset development impacts – in essence buying off objections.
• Limit the scope of appeals to cases where there is claimed to have been an abuse of power or failure to apply the local plan. Inspectors will not be given the remit to amend Local Plans if they have been arrived at by fair and proper process. The Lib Dems also wish to introduce third party appeals. This was also originally part of the Conservative programme but was dropped in the manifesto.

A number of these proposals have already raised concerns within the development industry who interestingly do not seem to be accorded a specific role in the new Conservative approach to policy formulation. The proposals for third party appeals have raised particular concerns.

There is a clear imbalance between the acknowledged need identified by both parties for the increase in affordable housing and the locally led planning process. In my view, should these proposals come to fruition, the natural instinct in many areas will be containment of development, often in the locations most in need of affordable housing. The Green paper does propose that local authorities will be incentivised financially to provide housing, although details on this are sketchy.

There is an inevitable conflict between the concept of winning local support for schemes and the extension of permitted development rights. This will surely only work if the type of development is tightly prescribed, with Local Plans in essence becoming detailed zoning plans. Past experience suggests that such plans will not keep up with changes in development pressures or the emergence of new forms of development and will in reality end up with the planning process becoming even more dogmatic and unresponsive.

It is clear that if these proposals should come forward in the coming months the development industry will need to present a common and active position in seeking to influence the detail of legislation if future difficulties are to be avoided. Thereafter, all development proposals will need to be drawn up to reflect the need to win public support from the outset. This will increase the importance of community consultation and involvement, with development budgets allowing both for the costs of this work and also the potential need to ‘buy off’ objectors. Given the inevitable effect on the bottom line and the likely increase in land values for those schemes which get through the system, I fail to see how these proposals will not hinder rather than assist the delivery of affordable housing.

Conclusions 

On the assumption that we are now faced with a workable Conservative/Lib Dem arrangement for Government over the next few years, the manifestos of the two parties and most notably the Conservatives’ suggest that we are in for some fairly radical changes – not all of them well thought out or mutually consistent.

In reality, given the more pressing national need to balance the books, I would anticipate much of the focus over the next three years being on selling tax increases and spending cuts as well as changes to the electoral system rather than focusing on radical reform of the planning system. The changes do mean, more than ever before, developers, operators and landowners will need to keep abreast of local issues and be alive to emerging policies as more locally variable approaches are developed.

DPP’s national network of offices is well placed to respond to these changes and we will keep you informed of issues which emerge and policy changes proposed both nationally and locally.

Should you wish to discuss the implications of the new Government policy for your current and potential projects do not hesitate to give us a call.

For more information please contact us.

Bob Robinson Partner 0113 236 4574