|
« back
The Coalition Government have set out their stall for how they propose to run the Town and Country planning system.
Its keynote is OPEN SOURCE PLANNING. The position is that the planning system is "broken"; that piecemeal reform would not be adequate and that a "radical re-boot" is needed. The "open source" concept originates in the software industry where it works in a highly flexible and adaptable way offering values of transparency and free access; it is said.
What this seems to mean in practice is that as many decisions as possible will "go local" within a basic national framework of planning priorities and policies. Local people and their accountable local governments can, it is claimed, produce their own distinctive local policies to create ..."... communities which are sustainable, attractive and good to live in".
In practical terms the programme will:
- abolish regional planning, together with national and regional building targets;
- change the Use Classes Order so that any use specified in the local plan will not need planning permission (or zoning as it used to be called);
- abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and re-allocate its functions to the Planning Inspectorate;
- remove Inspectors' powers to make binding changes to local plans;
- limit the rights to appeal to cases where process has failed or the local plan was not properly applied;
- develop "bottom up" local plans by collaborative democracy;
- provide a simplified consolidated national planning framework; and
- maintain established "protection" policies such as National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Green Belts etc.
The first three bullet points have already been actioned; the abolition of RSS documents provoking concerns that a policy vacuum was being created thus making it difficult to progress planning permissions and/or allocations of land for much needed new housing.
There is substantial criticism of the new Local Development Framework/Regional Spatial Strategy development plan system. It is difficult to know whether the solution of the "bottom up" approach will be any better. What is to stop unpopular but necessary development being pushed from area to area like a land use planning version of "pass the parcel"?
The proposal to allow change of use flexibility within a range specified in local plans (essentially zoning) is an interesting idea and worth a try. It could be more sensible to "pilot" such an approach first to "iron out"
Removing Inspectors' powers to issue binding changes to Local Plans following Public Inquiries risks being a retrograde step as this is one of the features of the new system introduced in 2004 which the planning profession has generally found to be valuable.
There is a proposal to allow rights of appeal against approvals as well as refusals. This too is a potentially retrograde move. It risks stymieing needed development that is being objected to for essentially "NIMBY" reasons. It is stated that there will be filter to prevent vexatious appeals but this is light on detail.
The creation of Local Housing Trusts is proposed so that communities can deliver affordable housing which will remain so in perpetuity. As an incentive, local authorities will, for six years, retain 125% of the Council Tax generated by every affordable unit.
The paper has a section on other planning issues which is effectively a shopping list:
- Wind farms: to encourage local communities to accept these often controversial developments the community will keep the business rates for six years.
- Town cramming: back garden land will be re-classified (no longer brownfield).
- Changes of use to schools will be made much easier.
- Mobile phone masts: these will all require full planning permission (given that network consolidation is proceeding - a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted).
- A clamp down on "travellers' sites".
- Retail development (out of town) to be more strictly controlled.
- Much of the Killian Pretty review's recommendations for extending permitted development rights will be implemented.
Even allowing for some inevitable simplification in reporting this planning policy approach does generate quite a lot of thought. There is a school of thought that a period of consolidation would be more valuable than a "radical reboot", but come what may, it looks as though at least some elements of the planning system are going to become a "political football".
A final thought: planning is a function which is devolved to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish administrators. Does this mean that we will see greater "legislative drift"? Does it matter?
To discuss this further please contact David Holmes on 07970 547156 or email him at david@adamsholmes.co.uk
Date of news item upload : Tue Aug 10 2010
|
