by Peter Latham

The Labour Government has already hobbled itself by keeping the Conservatives' fiscal rules on public spending. Worse, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have claimed for months that the planning system gets in the way of the growth on which they have pinned their economic strategy.

Like the Tories before them, they forget that the purpose of the planning system, successfully implemented by the 1945 Labour Government, is to enable development, including building work and changes of land use, to be carried out in the right place and at a suitable scale, taking into account relevant local conditions. Today most planning applications receive permission from local councils. Most refusals are upheld on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate, disappointing those whose schemes are turned down. This indicates that overall the system works pretty well at local council level, despite circumstances. It still has the tacit support of many housebuilders, because the housing permissions, whether implemented or not, keep up the value of land to their advantage.

So what is meant by the allegation that “planning causes delays”?

PLANNING DELAYS

The planning applications system is now very cumbersome, not least because of the extra duties heaped upon planning professionals in recent decades. Good design, for instance, was once a low priority. Now it is a national requirement, introducing design assessment processes that take time to do. Mixed use schemes with shops, offices, bars and flats are encouraged by development plans, but the extra complexity means there are more conflicts to iron out before approval, not helped by the Licensing Act of 2003, allowing bars to open late close to residential buildings. Flood Risk became a big issue after the floods of autumn 2000. Local planners were given the job of implementing the specialist requirements of the Environment Agency, who became a statutory consultee meaning they cannot be ignored. Questions of land contamination need more staff time, with more brownfield land being redeveloped than before.

All these things, and more, lengthen the assessment of developments without much increase in planning staff, and in many cases a reduction.

PRIVATISATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS 

A bigger change, however, was the attempt to bring nationally significant infrastructure projects under proper control. Such schemes include power stations, large renewable energy plants, airports, major roads, large sewerage schemes etc. At first, these schemes were assessed under Labour's Infrastructure Planning Commission established by the Planning Act (2008). Later, the Conservatives' Localism Act (2011) transferred the approval regime to the Planning Inspectorate. It is a distinct arrangement, separate from the local authority system of town and country planning.

The snag is that private firms, albeit with much government funding, might have the initiative in building these schemes, or not. If their shareholders want their 10 or 15% return, depending on conditions, they may choose to invest abroad rather than plod through a system increasingly beset by delays, as has become the case. The public interest, the entire purpose of the system, is the loser.

1979 was a watershed year. Before then, the state took a leading part in carrying out development. Local authorities built their own council houses on land allocated for them in the development plan. Early comprehensive redevelopment of old, poor housing was planned and designed by councils by departmental discussions in town and county halls, in accordance with current thinking. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government led councils in experimental public housing design to Parker Morris standards that often broke new ground. Town centres were designed and rebuilt as part of normal work by local councils, making new provision for ring roads that allowed shopping streets to be pedestrianised, mostly with attractive results compared with previously. Councils would submit applications to themselves under a procedure known as council's own development, governed by regulation.

After 1979 the Conservatives launched their attack on planning with the infamous Circular 22/80, heralding the beginning of deregulation. Over the years, council house construction was scrapped, compulsory purchase of land to enable comprehensive redevelopment was discontinued and councils had to balance their books upon pain of rate-capping. In addition the new towns programme was wound up and assets sold off, despite their commercial success for the Exchequer. Councils could do little as developer. Money had to be raised from various agencies by competitive bidding, a smokescreen for injustice and delay. The National Lottery Heritage Fund, for example, takes money from the working class in the form of bets to finance projects supported by the capitalist state, but not before the operating company takes a profit. The upshot is that implementation of development plans is in private hands, as it is developers that apply for permission to build.

Contrast this with the words of Sir Ernest Simon in 1945 on the rebuilding of Britain,“If we tackle this great task on the same broad lines as those that are winning the war: the planning must be done by the Government and the local authorities, the decision as to what is built and how and when and where must be made by the Government.” (1) Some senior professionals have gone backwards ideologically, thinking that implementation should remain a private business. Others, such as the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), assert that state-led development with the nationalisation of uplifted land values created by housing permissions, is the way forward. (2)

WHAT DOES LABOUR MEAN? 

Labour ministers do not seem to understand their planning history. Their predecessors, such as Lewis Silkin MP, piloted three Bills through Parliament on New Towns (1946), Town and Country Planning (1947) and National Parks (1949), taking a broad, visionary approach. Such people were much clearer about the state’s role in dealing with private business.

We are left trying to interpret Labour's disjointed remarks about green belt and grey belt, mandatory housing targets, an extra 300 planning officers (welcome, but a drop in the ocean), more onshore wind generation, and a review of the National Planning Policy Framework (3). Where is the logical thread? The allegation about parts of the green belt being “grey belt” is worrying. The purpose of green belts is to keep towns from coalescing. Green belts achieve this whether they are “green” or not, whether of plain appearance or of high landscape value. Quite ordinary sites can be an effective part of the green belt, and should not be developed.

Mandatory housing targets mean little in themselves. If private housebuilders do not build all the houses that they have been given permission to build, local councils can hardly make them. If something must be built then the state should do it.

Angela Rayner is to write to local authorities “making clear what is now expected of them” (4). She should be aware that planning work thrives on co-operation, consultation, and joint effort towards a common purpose. Genuine difficulties become clear in the process, and often a way forward emerges. A big stick may not succeed.

Labour has talked about new towns, no doubt to provide sites for big housing developments. This is a welcome result of ten years’ campaigning by the TCPA, amongst politicians and others. In the past all new towns covered not only housing, but industry, employment, transport, community provision, schools, public utilities, waste disposal, shopping centres, neighbourhood planning, parks and recreation and so on. The picture is different now. Corporate power is greater. Manufacturing has declined, so has public transport, town centre shopping, and social support of all kinds. Unemployment is higher, and the skills gap is greater. Many workers commute 30 or 40 miles to the next town to work. Building new towns in these changed conditions brings a whole crop of fresh challenges that will take a great deal of input to resolve. Labour should not fall into the trap of ordering these things without building up the will and means to do them.

Finally, let us remember that the previous new towns despite many strengths disproportionately benefitted the skilled working class. The late Peter Hall commented that despite being aimed at the least fortunate, the overcrowded and the ill-housed, the programme had the reverse effect. The most fortunate gained the most benefit, whilst the least fortunate gained very little (5). There is a big issue here.

Labour has not shown much vision with their recent announcements, or a grasp of the complexities, especially of the need for the regional approach that the Conservatives abolished. Many planners envisage green new settlements and town extensions, with higher densities along mass transit routes, exemplary design for healthy living, a reduced role for the motor car with more walking and cycling, and enhanced local shopping provision. But where will people work? There is everything to play for, but much for Labour to prove.

(1) The Politics of Town Planning, Gordon Cherry, Longman 1982. Chapter 3.

(2) Planning 2020, Final Report of the Raynsford Review of Planning in England, November 2018. Town and Country Planning Association.

(3) The NPPF is the government's guidance to local planning authorities about carrying out everyday development management. The assessment of national infrastructure projects by the Planning Inspectorate is a separate matter.

(4) The Planner, July/August 2024, Royal Town Planning Institute.

(5) The Politics of Town Planning, Gordon Cherry, Longman 1982. Chapter 1.

 

Preserving the green belt Photo by Colin Smith

After 1979 the Conservatives launched their attack on planning with the infamous Circular 22/80, heralding the beginning of deregulation. Over the years, council house construction was scrapped, compulsory purchase of land to enable comprehensive redevelopment was discontinued and councils had to balance their books upon pain of rate-capping.