Planning is about much more now than just saying Yes, or No

The government launched its planning white paper in May with the intention of streamlining the planning system. Ruth Kelly, then Communities Secretary, referred to the proposals as delivering ‘a planning system fit for the 21st century’. In the year of the 60th anniversary of the Attlee government’s creation of modern planning, the reforms introduce radical changes to the spirit, purpose and process of planning.

The reforms generated criticism from environmentalists and community representatives, concerned at the prospect of a ‘free for all’ on development issues. Business leaders welcomed the proposals that are intended to assist in economic growth and build on Kate Barker’s recommendations on planning and the economy published in 2006.

Barker was only one influence: other commissioned reports have also impacted on the white paper, including Eddington’s transport review, Stern’s climate change report and Lyons’ report on local government.

The media have tended to focus on two elements. The first is the environmental and democratic impacts of the proposed Independent Planning Commission (IPC) which will take charge of major planning projects previously the subject of long and expensive planning inquiries such as Heathrow Terminal 5. The second is on allowing small-scale neighbourhood development to occur without the need for planning permission, and the impact this may have on neighbours and property values.

It is right that the white paper deals with delay and inefficiency of long-winded planning inquiries and the red tape of the overtly-regulated town and country planning system.

But we are facing some major challenges in the UK that require addressing, including improvement to our infrastructure to ensure that the transport system does not grind to a halt in ten years time, delivering houses in the areas that require them over the next 20 years, avoiding floodplains, and ensuring that our cities and towns remain vibrant and competitive; it also includes co-ordinating strategies with housing plans to address the location of future health and education facilities and the provision of utilities.

So the reforms are also to assist in the delivery of stronger strategic policies to manage the future of our cities, towns and villages.

The white paper proposals can be headlined as follows:

• Small scale developments, such as extensions, with no impact on neighbours, to be exempt from planning permission.

• Industrial and commercial developments to be awarded enhanced freedoms from planning.

• Standard planning application processes, including online submissions, and a fast track planning appeals mechanism.

• Requiring developers to consult the public and other interested parties.

• Independent Planning Commission to make recommendations on major planning projects.

• Enhanced national strategic planning policy, setting out medium to long term planning requirements over a 25 year time period.

• Local authorities to become guardians of place shaping, concerned with community wellbeing, and integrating different actors and processes necessary to deliver places.

The paper attempts to strike a balance for future environmental protection, economic growth, and sustainable development. To tackle some of our major challenges, we need a strong planning system that will provide major infrastructure in the national interest. Critics have remarked that the proposed IPC will ride roughshod over local democratic processes.

But individual local authorities rarely determine such major proposals at the present time, as they are frequently ‘called-in’ by the secretary of state since the potential impacts of such development may be felt beyond the boundaries of one local authority area.

In the context of stronger national policy steer, the IPC will still be required to make recommendations to the minister who will ultimately be responsible to parliament for the decisions taken. Developments in the national interest require national politicians to act; it is not a dent in the democratic process, it merely utilises a different type of democratic process from that used to determine small household planning applications. And very few would contest that a ‘one size fits all’ planning system is appropriate in the 21st century.

Democratically, what might be lost locally by this reform democratically is made up for by other proposals that strengthen local and strategic policy within local authorities to deal with small and medium sized developments. The previous planning reforms, contained in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which introduce new local development frameworks and enhanced opportunities for communities to have a voice in shaping their own neighbourhoods, are bolstered. Most chief executives will welcome proposals to give some teeth to local government duties.

The complexity and broad ranging nature of the reforms speaks volumes about the expectations on planning today. To many people still, planning is seen as nothing more than a regulatory process that either allows or refuses people planning permission. Such a view is notable now for its ignorance.

Places are more than just concrete, construction and housing numbers. Planning needs to be a fluid process, to adapt and change to conditions. It involves pausing to think about the meaning of places, about how people use places, and how places can capitalise on their own identities and distinctiveness, to deliver economic growth and create better quality places to live and work within.

Place does matter. It matters as much as planning. Places need to renew, to be economically buoyant, to be efficient in transport networks and infrastructure, to be sustainable, to be secure, to provide sufficient and quality housing, accessible to all, and to be, above all, exciting places for people.

So will the proposals of the white paper lead to the creation of a planning system that really will manage change effectively? The short answer is, the potential is there. Planning has not always responded quickly to development opportunities, and reforms will tackle this. But it is also a fact that the number of different actors and agencies required to manage change is increasingly complex, and so planning’s role must take on the role of integrating, or coordinating, between diverse actors.

The local reforms should bring about improvement quickly. Other reforms will take years to roll out, but such is the nature of planning. It is not only about controlling what we build. Planning’s purpose is to integrate strategies with a clear vision to enable the creation of successful places for present and future generations.

Professor Mark Tewdwr-Jones is at Bartlett School of Planning, UCL.