Time to get Radical

The debate on reforms to the planning system has moved fast over recent months. Its change of emphasis is reflected in the change of the title of the green paper Delivering a Fundamental Change, issued in December 2001, to the policy statement Sustainable Communities – Delivering through Planning, issued in July 2002.

This change indicates a recognition that the ill-considered, incoherent hotchpotch of proposals put forward in the various green papers would create more problems than they would solve. The emphasis is now on enhancing the existing section 106 system, and the tariff idea has been abandoned.

The removal of the tariffs proposal could be interpreted as a dilution of the government’s intent relative to affordable housing, since the Reforming Planning Obligations consultation paper had placed great store on tariffs as a panacea for the delivery of affordable housing “as a fundamental component of sustainable development”.

But it is clear from the latest policy statement that the government sees the necessity for “radical action now” if we are “to meet the housing needs … of this generation, let alone the needs of our children”.

The policy statement is linked to a welcome commitment to greater public investment in affordable housing. But what constitutes “radical action now” when examining the current shopping list of planning reforms? The proposed changes to the development plan system may just about qualify as being “radical”. The greater emphasis on regional planning and the fixing of local affordable housing policies via local development frameworks may eventually assist, but the effects are unlikely to be seen for at least three to five years. The administrative changes to the processing of planning applications via the development control system could just about be delivered now but are hardly “radical”.

A culture change is needed – planning is not a negative mechanism

There does, however, remain one broad area in which there is genuine scope for “radical action now” – in changing the scope and purpose of the planning system and in enhancing the skills of, and resources available to, the people who operate it.

Any defined statutory purpose for planning must surely focus on the achievement of sustainable development within sustainable communities – with a specific emphasis on enabling everyone to have the opportunity of a decent home.

Nothing short of a culture change is required. There remains a major chasm at the root of the current malaise in the delivery of affordable housing: local authority enabling officers and registered social landlord development officers see planning as a negative mechanism that prevents the delivery of enough housing of the right type in the right place at the right time. The capabilities of the system for delivering affordable housing are seen as under-used. Planners are seen as paying only lip service to affordable housing, riding roughshod over their housing colleagues when hard choices are required.

Local authority planning officers, on the other hand, complain about naivity and special pleading. They regard RSLs as simplistic users of the planning system and weak negotiators, opportunists obsessed with one issue and lacking strategic vision.