Some things that are good and some things that are wrong in the Planning White Paper

Three quick observations from me on the Planning White Paper, as someone who spends more time than the average person speaking to developers, councillors and communities caught up in the planning process.

A new approach to the Local Plan is a good thing. That is not to say that I believe the Government reforms here will speed up the process (I don’t). Nor do I think doing this well is as simple as the Government makes it out to be.

However, greater civic and community involvement in shaping the key document that defines development can only be a positive. We have worked extensively with clients to explore the lack of trust in the planning system – notably with U+I and Grosvenor (the Grosvenor work is referenced in the White Paper). One of the things that comes up again and again is that communities are surprised by the decisions that have already been taken that shape the developments they are being consulted about.

They are angry at the way they feel they have been locked out of the system but find themselves expressing their dissatisfaction at the symptom (the specific development) rather than the cause (the Local Plan).

But how meaningful this reform becomes will depend on how much autonomy there is for communities to shape those plans. For example, is Green Belt sacrosanct? The White Paper also implies Government will dictate not just numbers but even broad locations for housing delivery.

Its success also depends on how well-resourced councils are to deliver greater public involvement. Don’t assume this is fixed by a whizzy website. A genuine consultation process requires proper time and resourcing.  

Those who have worked with me on these issues before will have heard me say that improving the planning system is much more about behaviour than it is process. And that one of the greatest barriers to local authorities adopting the right behaviours  - and indeed improving the efficiency of the entire system - is the capacity and calibre of local planning departments and councillors.

And this comes down to how we resource them. Local authorities remain under huge strain. If you really want this to work, then provide them with decent funding.

People are right to be suspicious of the removal of section 106s and CIL. This will probably upset some of my clients, but I am a big fan of section 106 agreements. Done well, I think they can be an elegant tool to deliver something that works for council, community and developer.

The councillor Ben Kind has put up a little thread today of things that s106s have funded in Lambeth and illustrates how widely they can be used. A genuine opportunity to shape local benefits.

A great deal of the disquiet is about the role s106 plays in delivering affordable housing. Absolutely – and whatever comes from these reforms, we need to do more to deliver affordable housing. However, this is somewhere I believe that s106 should be reformed. The provision of affordable housing via s106 pits council and developer against one another in a very negative way. It undermines any trust that has been built up between the parties and rarely leads to the right outcome for communities.

My personal view is that the expectation to fund affordable housing should be removed from developers and instead make the public sector the delivery vehicle. If we are ever to get ahead of the housing crisis, we need a proper public sector building programme. Funded by central government, delivered by local authorities.

Beauty does not win over communities in quite the way Government thinks. Sure, it’s better to propose a nice building than an ugly one. But if you spend time talking to those who oppose developments, it’s rarely about the design (although this is often referenced). It’s about the impact a scheme will have on people who are already living there.

The Prime Minister’s foreword implies that this is about to be aggressively tested with his emphasis on building homes in the places where people want to live. Those tend to be the areas which feel to existing residents to be most at risk of over-development. Beauty really won’t help that much…