PLANNING policy in the UK has had a turbulent time under the coalition’s reign, and last month’s Budget, which announced a streamlined system, offered little reassurance that things will improve.
A presumption in favour of sustainable development is the new order of the day and, on the surface, there seemed much for the development community to celebrate.
The relaxation of planning rules and new incentives for development in certain areas are positive steps, and so it’s unfortunate that these pro-growth measures might be destined for a head-on collision with the Government’s other big idea for planning – localism.
Designed to empower local communities with more involvement in planning decisions, the Localism Bill has been behind the thrust of all of the coalition’s planning decisions since coming to power.
This included the controversial scrapping of regional housing targets last year.
The new tactic for addressing housing shortages – allowing landlords and developers to change the use of commercial schemes without planning permission – is unlikely to solve the problem.
By their nature, commercial schemes are often located in areas unsuitable for residential development, particularly for family housing. Scrapping the need for planning permission would also deprive local authorities of valuable Section 106 contributions – payments which often go towards funding the kind of infrastructure needed to create a sustainable community.
It is also directly in opposition to the localism agenda’s stated aim of giving more powers to local communities. This is also true of the reintroduction of enterprise zones. In the context of localism, relaxing planning rules in designated areas seems contradictory.
A pro-growth agenda is not to be sniffed at, but it must be a concern that it could have the rug pulled from under it by the Government’s own drive to empower local communities.
It’s certainly another headache for planning authorities.
Having already been labelled a “chronic obstacle to economic growth” by the Chancellor, planning officers are now faced with the unenviable task of balancing two seemingly incompatible agendas.
