One step forwards, two steps back

The debate over planning gain often overlooks the importance of the planning system to the delivery of new homes. Registered social landlords are experiencing greater delays and more refusals than ever before.

The government claims to have a radical agenda to address the problems in the system. Will the changes work? The 1990 review of the planning system represented an important shift away from simply preferring development in all forms towards only favouring development that accorded with the local unitary plan, unless "other material considerations" dictate otherwise.

One of the main reasons that the current system is not working is that many authorities do not have an up-to-date development plan against which to assess proposals. The government's proposals to simplify and speed up the development plan system are therefore welcome. But there are already so many instances in which local authorities (and even the secretary of state) bring into play "other material considerations" that the anticipated greater degree of certainty may prove illusory.

As many RSLs can attest, the planning system now encompasses a much wider range of considerations than ever before. One of course is affordable housing, which should (in theory) be weighed as a positive material consideration by local authorities. On the other side of the coin are a whole raft of considerations such as ecology, archaeology, land stability, contamination, listed buildings, flood protection, landscape, the sequential test and design; all of which can constrain or prevent development and can require quite detailed investigation before planning permission is granted.

The mantra of planning authorities is "sustainable development", but the interpretation of this nebulous concept is often skewed in favour of the environment at the expense of social and economic benefits. Environmental considerations are frequently used as a smokescreen to camouflage or justify "nimby" concerns.

The government has fudged the issue of establishing either a purpose for planning or a more precise definition of "sustainable development" in the planning bill. The opportunity has been lost to provide planning with a sharper focus and set of priorities. We are now left to rely on changes to various pieces of planning policy guidance.

Far from strengthening the current provision in PPG1 that "nimby" concerns are only legitimate if underpinned by material planning considerations, the planning bill contains a provision that all substantial applications should be accompanied by a "statement of community involvement". Failing to garner sufficient public support may now become a sufficient reason to refuse planning permission in itself. This is particularly worrying for supported housing and special needs schemes.

Much remains to be clarified but there are a number of other worrying implications for RSLs as developers. It is clear that the length of planning permissions will be truncated and appeal rights further limited. It is also clear that it will become even more difficult if not impossible to obtain a simple outline planning permission in order to establish the value and/or viability of a site. Furthermore, while the green paper contained several common-sense changes to the development control system geared to speeding up the decision-making process, many of these changes are predicated on placing greater responsibilities on applicants to provide the requisite information.

Essentially, the reforms will not counter the underlying trends of recent years. Even if the successors to the current PPG3, Circular 1/97 and Circular 6/98, place an even greater weight on affordable housing as a material consideration, achieving prompt planning permissions is likely to require ever increasing ingenuity. RSLs have been relatively naive users of the system until now; they have to become more sophisticated if they are to be more successful in the future.