When it comes to planning, ignore the little people at your peril

On 16 November, I attended EG’s UK Residential Summit at Birmingham Town Hall, writes Martin Edwards. It was money well spent. The day was full of informative, illustrative and, at times, inspirational presentations. Questions from the audience were both perceptive and revealing and much was to be learnt when networking over lunch and coffee. Overall, though, it left me with the distinct and worrying impression that current thinking within central government is out of touch with what is really happening in the outside world. Maybe this is one of the reasons why planning law is as litigious as ever. Positives, yet concerns abound There were plenty of positives. I learnt about new concepts such as co-living and innovative build-to-rent schemes and examples were provided of these disruptive residential schemes. But it became clear to me that there is a difference in thinking between what the planning professions have traditionally promoted and what the millennial generation want, need and can afford. It is ironic that planning, which at its very core is all about looking to the future, should be in the grip of a generation (my generation) intent on clinging to a vision of a past idyll that never truly existed. One common criticism coming from both the private and public sector was the stranglehold that nimbyism exerts over the planning system in some parts of the country. To his credit, secretary of state Sajid Javid said much the same thing in his speech on the housing market in Bristol on the same day (available on the DCLG website). Another universal concern is the chronic underfunding of planning departments. One local authority senior officer spoke of the dilemma he faced in trying to recruit experienced staff to deal with an increasing workload against a backdrop of funding cuts. His own authority had calculated that doubling planning application fees was not going to solve that problem. Noticeably, no one from the development industry appeared to object to increased fees if it led to a swifter and better service. It seems to me the current political thinking in Whitehall regarding public cuts is akin to that of the Black Knight in Monty Python’s quest for the Holy Grail. The regional dimension There was also praise about the recent introduction of new regional mayors. Those I spoke to were full of cautious praise for the efforts of mayors such as Andy Street, Andy Burnham and, of course, Sadiq Khan – the current incumbent of the longest-serving mayoral post. All showed the clear need for regional thinking and the need for a more collaborative approach to planning. All go about their tasks in a measured, authoritative and persuasive manner – an approach that is clearly welcomed by the development industry. Vital issues such as tackling the housing crisis and replacing outdated infrastructure require considered debate and measured solutions. While no one touched on this directly, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that one of the problems that has beset the planning system is the lack of any real regional planning dimension and the recent introduction of regional mayors is symptomatic of this. Maybe the idea of John Prescott, when deputy prime minister under Tony Blair, of regionally elected assemblies (enshrined in the ill-fated Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003) was not a bad one, but one ahead of its time. Perhaps, with hindsight, the political groundwork needed to have been better prepared and over a longer timescale. The abolition of regional planning guidance as a result of the Localism Act 2011 certainly hasn’t helped. The introduction of the “duty to cooperate” is little more than a sticking plaster over a gaping wound. More strategic oversight required There is a clear need for a return to a more strategic oversight and we are beginning to see this emerge. It was announced that Javid is considering intervening in 15 English planning authorities where there has been a lamentable failure to progress local plans. In addition, the proposed introduction of a standard method for calculating housing need in local authorities will result in many authorities, especially in the South East and East of England, having to find more land for new homes. One impression I gained from the summit was that many developers found those planning authorities outside the South East, and particularly in the Midlands and North where there are regional mayors, far more welcoming to new innovative developments. The tall buildings corridor in Birmingham is one example. All these schemes are addressing the future needs of the younger generation and, as this year’s General Election showed, ignore this sector of the population at your peril. Help may be at hand However, none of this should detract from the seemingly contradictory concept of neighbourhood planning. While I initially agreed with the commonly held view that it was nothing less than a licence for nimbyism, I have come to the view that, properly resourced and guided, neighbourhood planning has an important role to play. It is clear there are major teething problems with the concept, as the disproportionate number of cases in the Planning Court evidences, but it is a concept that can, and should, be made to work and play its part. After all, as the Brexit vote showed, there are times when Westminster’s politicians are only too happy to trust the people. It is only when the views of us ordinary folk are ignored that a problem truly becomes a crisis. Martin Edwards is a barrister at Cornerstone Barristers Main image © WestEnd61/REX/Shutterstock