The planning system in England is not working as it should. In particular, the interests of landowners and developers have taken precedence over those of citizens, especially those on low- and middle-incomes, working-class people, and communities and groups protected under the Equality Act 2010.
The proposed revisions to the planning system in the government white paper Planning for the future look likely to make matters worse. They will further reduce the supply of housing and dramatically reduce opportunities for public participation. It is not surprising, then, that a recently concluded consultation on the proposals received strong criticisms from a wide range of respondents.
From the standpoint of the 80 the citizen groups in London represented by the Just Space network, the proposals are simply wrong. They would limit democracy, increase developers' profits and offer a free gift of development rights to landowners, rights which were taken from them in 1947 and transferred to local authorities to grant or withhold. The reforms would offer few silver linings for residents. Debating the white paper, our member groups largely agreed that although the planning system does require changes, it does not need those the government is suggesting.
In fact, the advantages of stronger policy and less flexibility for developers and councils could be fully realised under the present planning system, and do not require the major shift to zoning envisaged by the government. The Just Space network therefore declined to answer the government's leading questions in the consultation, and instead presented its own insights on what is wrong with the planning system – and what is actually required.
"Our member groups largely agreed that although the planning system does require changes, it does not need those the government is suggesting"
One of the most significant of the proposed changes is to sweep away all the current tests for the soundness of local plans and use instead a single criterion: sustainable development. "The achievement of sustainable development is an existing and well-understood basis for the planning system, and we propose that it should be retained", the government claims.
The trouble is that the phrase "sustainable development" is now virtually meaningless. Almost any development project can lay claim to the label, and it is too vague for officers, councillors or communities to challenge effectively. This is clear from the way it is used to threaten councils that have an inadequate land supply or no up-to-date plan – they will suffer a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
To enable robust decision-making by planners, councillors and inspectors, which enables developers to know what to expect, sustainable development must be defined in terms of rigorous benchmarks or criteria. The existing schedule to the Environmental Assessment Directives offers a good start for preparing such a definition; another interesting model is the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
Most people think sustainability relates solely to the environment, and clearly any criteria would have to deal with transport and building emissions, biodiversity, depletion of resources, climate change and other imperatives. But any definition must give equal consideration to social and economic sustainability.
Like previous attempts to reform the planning system, the white paper also focuses on the pursuit of a target number of total housing completions. But this emphasis is wrong: it inflates land prices and uses up precious building land, industrial space and green areas, while the backlog of unmet need for low-rent social housing continues to grow.
The government's blind faith that increasing the supply of market dwellings will improve affordability would take many decades to bring prices down, and only then for households rich enough to buy. Research on the rate at which permitted sites are developed confirms that developers do not build fast enough to bring prices down substantially.
Furthermore, although the government proposes to allocate new housing by an algorithm, there is no formula that could distribute development to meet the primary challenge the country faces: to minimise car dependency and ecological damage. Whatever replaces the existing formula, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), must be based on careful evaluation of environmental, economic and social impacts.
A particular concern of Just Space's member groups is that design control should enforce standards for housing and neighbourhood design, such as floorspace and balconies, dual-aspect ventilation, inclusivity, children's play and public green space, and cycle and pedestrian priority over cars. The same requirements should be set in national policy as well.
Just Space seeks to ensure that communities have an input into the design of schemes, to complement the design review stage of planning approval carried out by professionals. Community groups in London frequently find that developers and their architects have been in close pre-application discussions with boroughs in ways that make it almost impossible to challenge when schemes eventually reach committee. But even this stage of participation is something that the government proposes to scrap, at least outside protected zones.
"Just Space seeks to ensure that communities have an input into the design of schemes"
This is a vital point, because community groups have a tremendous amount to contribute. Yet we sense the government sees participation as an obstacle. People who get together to protect their green space, air quality, jobs and communities from displacement are dismissed in the white paper as a "small minority of voices, some from the local area and often some not, to shape outcomes", apparently opposed to more housing being built in their areas. This is not the case in London, however, where public participation stems from the desire to protect public assets and supply more housing that people can genuinely afford to rent or buy.
Indeed, the Just Space network organised community groups to produce a community-led plan for London in 2013. Voluntary groups can play a crucial role in ensuring that the diversity of society is reflected in public debate through initiatives such as this.
But this work needs resourcing, and most local authorities have long been short of money to help even if they wanted to. Better arm's-length funding for grassroots activity would be a major plus for sustained public engagement, to ensure that it’s not only retired professionals who become involved.
We, and other London groups, have benefitted from the public engagement activities of a few universities and that is a collaboration that should be developed and improved, not set aside. We have recommended to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) that each local planning authority should maintain an open register of individuals and groups that wish to be kept informed about planning issues. We propose that traditional means of communication such as signs on lampposts and documents in libraries and schools be retained alongside online consultations.
We are also adamant that full opportunities for public participation and informed decisions by councillors must be maintained at planning approval stage – at least until after the proposed new rule-based plans have bedded down and earned trust.
The existing right to be heard by an inspector is precious and should not be sacrificed in the name of streamlining. A third-party right of appeal should be instituted as well, especially for cases where consultation fails to meet the criteria confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Sharing information, research and resources, the Just Space network is active at neighbourhood, borough and London-wide levels. What brought us together in 2007 was the need to challenge the planning process's domination by developers and the public bodies they influence.
Since then, we have gathered and nurtured considerable experience and know-how from London's diverse community organisations: more than 80 community groups were enabled to speak and give evidence to last year's examination in public of the London Plan, for instance.
On the subject of public engagement, technology can and should help improve the transparency and accessibility of planning. During the pandemic, online meetings have enabled many people with caring responsibilities, mobility difficulties or other constraints to take part in public meetings for the first time, and these virtual arrangements must be retained alongside physical meetings when these can resume.
However, there's a class or occupational bias built into the use of platforms such as Zoom – a bias that challenges the common idea that technology enables wider access. People in professional occupations develop the confidence and capability to use these kinds of techniques as part of their paid employment. Those in manual occupations and other working-class jobs, however, do not tend to have these skills. Thus, we have observed that lower-income, non-professional people normally attend physical meetings but are noticeably absent online.
Inequality is also a factor in the economics associated with planning. The financial value of houses, land and property is massive, and continues to grow, boosted by credit availability, public services and enormous state investments such as Crossrail. All that added value should return to the community – but the amount that is captured by the existing Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and section 106 agreements is tiny.
Likewise, what happens to the uplift in value of a site once planning permission is granted? There is no accountability or audit. Local authorities' annual monitoring reports simply record what housing was supposed to be built as a result of section 106 agreements, but developers and housing associations can switch tenure forms or rent levels with impunity. There is next to no data on the housing that is actually being made available.
Getting rid of the entire system by which developers get to determine what is viable is a high priority for community groups. Policies should be clear and inflexible, and if that makes a site unprofitable then the value of land will fall and existing uses can continue. This is tough luck for speculators who have paid too much, but good news for communities who use the land.
Michèle Dix of TfL has said previously that Crossrail 2 would cost £30bn, but add £60bn market value to the stock of owner-occupied housing in the areas served. In comparison, the £7bn annual value captured from section 106 and CIL across the UK is tiny. Most of the value generated by planning and infrastructure development is privately exploited. That's what needs to change.
The white paper styles itself as radical reform. But the radical reform we want to suggest is the right for collectives of people to roam, socialise, and manage parks and streams, among other land uses. We want more land and housing to be taken care of by the public rather than the market. There is some tension between that approach and moving to land value taxation, as the government proposes, which could simply represent a more efficient form of capitalism that gives markets even more power to determine densities and uses.
It is also an open question whether it should be the planning system that captures land value. Why not the tax system? Where can we even have these debates?
PROPERTY JOURNAL
Emma Cooke 22 March 2024
PROPERTY JOURNAL
Khumehra Mohammed MRICS 08 March 2024
PROPERTY JOURNAL
Guy Harris 09 February 2024
