Planning White Paper: on the right track… or in the wrong zone?

Claire Dutch and Kathryn Hampton discuss some of the common themes from the responses to the Planning White Paper and consider what they might mean for the planning system. The overarching consensus of responses to the government’s Planning White Paper is that change is welcome, but opinion is divided on the degree of change required. Few agree that such a dramatic overhaul is needed, but the majority consider the system to be overly complicated and that getting consent takes longer than it should. Lack of detail is a key criticism, along with scepticism that new rule-based local plans (with the ability to grant automatic planning permission) can be in place in a mere 30 months. Digitalisation could help and is popular, but is no white knight. There is a common call for the government to ensure that the system is inclusive and accessible, and that councils are sufficiently resourced to ensure a smooth and effective transition. Undemocratic? Much has been made of the proposals to deregulate and streamline the planning system, with some concerned that this will disrupt its democratic constitution. The new-form local plan is a good example, with many worrying that local authorities will not be able to set their own planning policies. This isn’t quite right. The policy-stripping of local plans is not proposed, simply that national policy is not repeated and that local development management policies are expressed in a different way – clearer, more simple “rules” rather than vague, wordy paragraphs. Those concerned about the curtailing of public consultation may be comforted by the multiple references to the push for more public engagement; design codes that can only be signed off after sufficient public input; and better technology to make development proposals clearer and improve public access to planning. Yes, there may be more of a shift to engagement at the plan-making stage, but if this is when outline permission for the major sites is granted, surely that’s entirely appropriate? The streamlining of environmental impact assessment is another example which has set hares running. Our reading is that the changes are aimed at simply speeding up the assessment and making it easier for decision-makers to assess the impact using improved modelling, not at diluting environmental protection. No duty to co-operate? The proposed removal of the duty to co-operate without any strategic planning alternative has been unpopular. The duty to co-operate has been troublesome for many, unclear how to discharge it, but since the revocation of regional spatial strategies in 2010, there has been a call for cross-boundary planning, which has become even more crucial amid the housing and Covid-19 crises. Numerous local plans have been stalled by a deemed failure to comply with the duty, and each challenge to such inspector ruling has failed, Sevenoaks being the latest. The white paper says there will be “further consideration” on strategic cross-boundary issues, but no detail is given. Some believe the binding national housing requirement will be the “stick” that will require effective cross-authority planning, but with no detail on how this will work, the jury is out. We would advocate the retention of the duty to co-operate, supplemented by clearer practical guidance on how to comply with it, coupled with sanctions for neighbouring authorities that do not play ball. Beauty obsession? A common condemnation is that there is too much emphasis on beauty. Often cited as a reason for refusal, the driver behind it is clear. But providing guidance on popular design is one thing; fast-tracking “beautiful” schemes is another. If design codes have to include “a variety of development types from different builders”, they will take some time to compose and presumably require significant developer input. If the design is diverse (which it should be), the plans will need to be very specific about which design is approved in each area. If the submission of a traditional planning application is to be the “exception”, there will be huge pressure on the local plan process to cater for an expansive range of design to cover all of the development to be approved via this new system. Is this likely? Is this even possible? It’s certainly ambitious. Ambitious, housing-focused, naive? That’s our three-word summary of the white paper from the responses we have seen. There is no doubt that the promise to overhaul the planning system has been taken seriously, but is such radical reform needed, and is this the right time? Under-resourced local authorities are already having to cope with the pandemic, new planning rules and the need for transition post-Brexit. The proposed changes would burden councils with the additional task of implementing new (and complex) systems, getting to grips with digitalisation and increased volume of public communication. Housing secretary Robert Jenrick recently acknowledged that the reforms would necessitate “a period of intense activity” for local authorities, but what strain will this have on development? We have recently heard reports of applications awaiting validation weeks after submission; decision deadlines being pushed out by months; and local plan adoption stalling. Can the system cope with such ambitious change or would it be better to make some smaller, but effective changes to the system we are all familiar with? We think it would. Claire Dutch is a partner and co-head of planning and Kathryn Hampton is a senior expertise lawyer at Ashurst LLP Photo by Vlad Vasnetsov/Pixabay