Are we more planned against than planning?

Is the sheer complexity of the planning system an obstacle to providing new homes? It may well be, says Denis Minns.

In his seminal book Outline of planning law, author and planning lawyer Sir Desmond Heap paraphases King Lear in asking whether we are ‘more planned against than planning?’ It has indeed seemed to me at times that planning is more about development control than planning new and vibrant communities or even allowing minor additions to existing houses. Have we been planning, or inventing ways of restricting development in the belief that new development will detract from our existing environment? Has this philosophy led to our present housing crisis? Are we more planned against than planning?

I believe now that attitudes are changing. Government and local planning authorities have finally got the message that a more proactive approach to planning is required to deliver more homes. This change in outlook will no doubt be welcomed by planners who have a key role in the proactive planning process, but it comes with an increasingly heavy burden that demands creative and organised professional skills together with a whole range of additional responsibilities and potential constraints.

Today, planning applications for development require many reports and surveys that are often technical in content. The effect of these needs to be understood to ensure that their strict interpretation will not contradict the implementation of the permission. These reports often include: ecology, arboriculture, archaeology, heritage, hydrology and environmental matters relating to contamination of soil. The planner has to be able to understand the requirements of this supporting information and balance those requirements with design, density and access arrangements in weighing up the benefits of a proposal.

It is no surprise then that this welter of information increases the time taken for local planning authorities to decide planning applications and can introduce reasons for refusal that are outside the traditional planning brief. Has this now circumscribed the desire to grant consent for more new homes?

The number of conditions that many planning permissions are subject to has increased due to the supporting information. This is particularly true of listed building consents. I have seen conditions on planning applications that make implementation within the specified timescale impossible. The task of balancing the requirements of the supporting information with a timescale for implementation of the planning permission is certainly not an easy one.

The sanctity of green belt has often seemed to me to be misplaced against a background of acute housing need. I do not see that we will achieve our housing targets without release of green belt land. The favoured school of thought here is that we should concentrate green belt release around railway stations. This seems to me an initiative that addresses two issues. First the creation of affordable new homes but also the reliance on rail travel rather than car use. Planners will grasp this as an opportunity to increase density of development and pedestrian pathways rather than vehicle use. The challenge here is the inevitable opposition from local residents and national groups keen to preserve green belt that the planner is faced with.

While release of green belt sites introduces a solution to our need for more new homes, a whole range of supplementary interests evolve. New developments are often criticised as an impact on medical services in a community. The solution here is the opportunity to create medical centres within the new development. Indeed, new housing development might promote public health via pedestrian circulation, cycleways, sports facilities and community groups. Local shops and offices serving the new housing and providing employment can be incorporated. Here the results of housing need surveys and pressure for speculative housing is balanced against a demand for employment and community infrastructure. All these requirements place an additional demand on planners who have to delve into statistics to achieve balanced proposals.

Permitted development used to be limited to minor household development such as small extensions, patios and garden walls. Today it has been expanded to include a whole range of potential changes of use to provide more homes, and further changes are envisaged that will allow us to provide new homes. This is a positive move by government and one that planners will welcome as such decisions are often free of the restrictions of conditions. This fluid and rapid change does, however, create issues with some developers taking advantage of the absence of space standards but it is an initiative that demonstrates the ability of the planning system to be more flexible and free from additional constraints.

A variety of tax measures have evolved that require developers to contribute to the community. Planning agreements and community infrastructure levy are useful tools for planners when granting planning permissions to fund the improvement of infrastructure such as highway works, local schooling and community facilities. These measures again place an additional administrative burden on the planning system.

This article was written by Denis Minns for The Planner and reproduced here with permission.