Churlish it might be, but with talk of major planning reforms now firmly on the political agenda it is difficult not to mutter under one's breath that famous phrase about "good intentions" and "the road to hell".
One is also reminded that squaring the circle, which is what the Government appears to want to do, is a task of truly Herculean proportions.
No-one doubts that Secretary of State Stephen Byers means business nor that his lieutenants Lord Falconer and Sally Keeble are already rolling up their metaphorical sleeves to deliver what Byers is calling for. Nothing less than "a radical overhaul" of the planning system is in prospect, apparently.
So we are promised a green paper on planning later in the year. Be very afraid. This means lots more consultation. A green paper precedes a white paper which actually spells out what a government plans to do.
Although there have been some signals about what ministers have in mind, it is equally clear they are treading carefully and are anxious not to annoy any of their constituents, whomever they are.
Ministers want to see less delay, more community involvement, more consistency from planning authorities and oodles more best practice (but a less legalistic inquiry system).
Byers made that clear in a speech at the end of July.
He also insisted: "As we consider the fundamental purpose of planning, we need to ask questions about what planning has done well in the past, what it has done less well and to see what lessons we can learn from the future".
One clear candidate for reform is national policy guidance. Byers suggests "we may have gone too far with the detail".
Lots of rhetoric, then, at this stage from the man at the helm of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: "Does it make sense to prescribe everything at the national level? Is there a case for asking the regions to play a bigger part? Should planning shift down to the level at which the consequences will be most felt?"
The development plan system is up for grabs. What Byers calls "this multi-layered system" is arguably much too complex and is palpably not delivering on the ground. "If the system is broke – and quite a few people seem to think that it is – then we have got to fix it".
It all sounds so well intentioned, doesn't it? But all the indications from the new department (shorn of its statutory "green" responsibilities) are something of a talkfest rather than incisive action.
Your heart should already be in your boots. "I think we have to do much more to articulate the positives of planning and its role in implementing policy. We have got to get away from the regulatory culture and recognise that planning can be a very powerful way of reconciling both environmental and economic benefits," opined the SoS.
He concluded the speech with the sort of fatuous phrase which leaps straight from New Labour's hymn sheet. "I hope my words underline my firm commitment to a more positive planning service that has a stronger sense of vision and a stronger will to deliver".
My interpretation of this says it smacks of "oh gawd, we know something needs doing and can you all please agree what it should be ...".
Life, unfortunately, ain't like that. The history of the last 20 years is littered with promised reforms followed by fudged and botched measures delivered late against the incessant sound of grinding axes wielded by vested and very vocal interests.
Major reform will need primary legislation and more consensus than I believe currently exists. And all the changes in the world won't be worth the paper they are written on unless ministers sort out the problems with local authority staffing and resources.
Not to mention that vexed question of the calibre of many of those working in planning departments.
And just in case you are tempted to accuse me of partiality over local government performance, I must mention that the latest statistics about the Government Offices for the Regions are absolutely nothing to shout about.
In the case of called-in applications, the target was 80% of decisions in 13 weeks and 100% in 20 weeks. The offices notched up nearly 70% and 73% respectively. In the case of recovered appeals the target was 80% of decisions within eight weeks and 100% inside 13 weeks. And the result ? Just 56% and nearly 70%.
No comment (apart from "physician heal thyself!").
Source
Building Homes
