×î×¼µÄÁùºÏ²ÊÂÛ̳

Over the last five years, we have witnessed sweeping changes to the planningÌýsystem. The regional tier has been stripped away, a new scale of planning introducedÌýat the smallest ‘neighbourhood’ level, and a wide range of specialised centralÌýguidance reduced to a single National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). At theÌýsame time, resources for local authority planning departments have been drasticallyÌýcut. However, rather than resolve any problems, these reforms have created aÌýfundamentally flawed system.

Central government has failed to provide a strong, coherent and relevantÌýplanning agenda. The NPPF is not a national plan but a statement of policyÌýguidance. It fails to provide strong policy direction on major issues affecting societyÌýtoday and constituting significant risks for the future. Social inequality – acrossÌýregions, within cities, in employment, housing and health – is largely ignored.ÌýEnvironmental sustainability – the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions and toÌýplan for the impacts of climate change – is given scant attention. The lack of strategicÌýdirection means that there is little likelihood of progress being made against importantÌýpolicy goals. There is insufficient detail to guide local government plan-making andÌýdevelopment decisions and its ambiguity offers the prospect of planning by appeal,Ìýwith consequent uncertainty, delays and costs to the public purse.

The current planning system does not provide for adequate strategic planningÌýat the sub-national scale. The removal of the regional tier of planning has meantÌýthat there is nowhere for progress on issues that demand consideration at this scale,Ìýsuch as major public infrastructure and housing need. As a result territorial injustice isÌýnot being addressed; the persistence and even growth of regional inequalities isÌýtestimony to this public policy failure. Furthermore, without regional planning, theÌýlocal plan system is struggling. The statutory ‘duty’ upon local authorities toÌýcooperate between themselves is not delivering strategy on a wider scale and theÌýburden on the local plan, together with the lack of resources, means that localÌýauthorities find it difficult to keep their plans up to date.

³Û±ð³ÙÌýthere remains a democratic deficit within planning.ÌýThere is much to beÌýwelcomed in the idea of neighbourhood planning as a statutory basis for theÌýinvolvement of local communities in planning processes. However, suchÌýengagement requires time, skills and resources to mobilise communities and resolveÌýconflicts. Implementing neighbourhood planning in a time of financial cutbacks hasÌýcreated the false premise that planning can be done ‘on the cheap’. In addition, theÌýnew system may contribute to rather than redress social inequalities. Some localÌýcommunities are able to draw on their own resources and benefit from the newÌýsystem; others lack the capacity to create their own neighbourhood plan, a problemÌýcompounded by the cuts in local authority budgets. And, beyond theÌýneighbourhood, there is a public accountability deficit at higher scales – at the levelÌýof the borough, the city, the region. Here planning discussions are oftenÌýcharacterized by technocratic and professionalized debates and public apathy.

We lack the planning tools needed to deliver on public policy goals.ÌýThere isÌýtoo much reliance on an outmoded system of plan-making and the deregulation of planning decisions weakens the use of development control for policy purposes. InÌýaddition, the use of planning gain to meet community needs means that theÌýplanning system is too focused on promoting market-led urban development. TheÌýforms of development that result are profit-led and often do little for incumbentÌýcommunities. A better set of planning tools and a much greater resource-base areÌýneeded to deliver against economic, social and environmental objectives.

There is an urgent need for a stronger planning system. Relative to cities inÌýGermany, France and Scandinavia, most UK cities compare very poorly andÌýdemonstrate major problems in economic, social and environmental terms thatÌýdemand attention. Here we set out five key ideas for radical improvement. TheseÌýproposals for change sit within a clear and concise set of principles for planning,Ìýwhich guide our thinking on how the current system could be improved. We haveÌýalso taken a number of topical issues and, in each case, shown how our proposalsÌýfor change would lead to a different approach and, we would argue, betterÌýeconomic, social and environmental outcomes.

Five Radical Ideas

1. Planning should be for wellbeing not just growth

The pursuit of economic growth (usually measured by rising GDP) has become aÌýcore purpose of planning. This is premised on assumptions that there will beÌýimmediate increases in income and employment for the many and ‘trickle-down’Ìýbenefits for others. Public goods can then be funded through any surplus and all ofÌýthis should improve collective wellbeing.

However, the evidence shows this model is not working. As GDP has doubled in theÌýUK since the 1970s, we have seen rising inequality, soaring house prices, a growth inÌýlow-paid jobs, falling wages (as a % of GDP) and rising concerns about job security.ÌýPut simply, most of us have not enjoyed the benefits of this apparent economicÌýsuccess; the aggregate rise in GDP has been focussed on only a select few.ÌýImportantly, as wealth has increased overall, people’s satisfaction with life has hardlyÌýchanged so that even those receiving increased income and wealth are notÌýnecessarily happier. Critically, this economic model is also causing increasing harm toÌýour environment through pollution and loss of natural resources. In some cases,Ìýperversely, environmental degradation can actually contribute to GDP if it createsÌýprofitable economic opportunities.

The planning system is trapped in a reliance on promoting economic growth.ÌýThe current model is that planning supports market-led urban development –Ìýoften associated with localised gentrification – in order to generate profits that canÌýpay for community benefits. Planners and locally-elected politicians, despite theirÌýbest intentions, can find themselves supporting development that displacesÌýexisting local economic activity and threatens community infrastructure. And whereÌýthere is insufficient economic demand for this model to work, the planning systemÌýis largely powerless.

Planning needs to rediscover its original purpose of delivering fairness and promotingÌýcollective wellbeing, a role that encompasses support for sustainable local economicÌýgrowth. But it needs to delink from the narrow measure of GDP that gives noÌýconsideration to how rising income is shared out, where it came from, or theÌýconsequent negative environmental impacts.

2. Planning powers must be radically devolved

The governance of planning at the local and regional scale in England has beenÌýcharacterised by upheaval and uncertainty with negative effects on local growth andÌýequity. The latest upheaval comes in the form of localism, a misnomer insofar as keyÌýpowers in the planning system that affect local communities continue to beÌýexercised by the Secretary of State. Centralisation and lack of transparency inÌýplanning make a major contribution to declining faith in the political system becauseÌýthe planning system is often an important point of contact with the state for theÌýcitizen. Ensuring the public legitimacy of the planning system is a pressing concern.ÌýA necessary condition for this is a genuine decentralisation of planning powers asÌýpart of a wider reinvigoration of direct, participative and representative democracy.ÌýThe next government should commit to achieving a broad consensus for such aÌýprogramme. This will involve a move away from the ad hoc deal-based systemÌýwhich characterises current central-local relationships and in the direction ofÌýenduring and stable frameworks based upon the principle of subsidiarity.

Such mechanisms should still recognise the need to set national frameworks forÌýcertain key issues. For example, England-wide spatial planning is required to createÌýthe conditions for a rebalanced economy and to deal with housing supply, nationalÌýinfrastructure and problems such as coastal management in an era of acceleratingÌýenvironmental change and rising sea levels.

But they should also recognise the democratic right for regions to shape their futureÌýdirections. A major current weakness of the planning system is its inability to dealÌýwith ‘larger than local’ or strategic development issues. The Coalition government ofÌý2010-2015 has argued that planning decisions should be made at the local scaleÌýand strategic issues should be addressed on the basis of inter-municipal cooperationÌýand agreements. But there is mounting evidence that the ‘Duty toÌýCooperate’, introduced by the Localism Act 2011, is failing to fill the strategic voidÌýcreated by the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies. Regional frameworks forÌýstrategic planning matters are needed, based on regional democratic control ofÌýdecision-making.

Within such a context, the problems of cities can then be addressed. EffectiveÌýspatial planning is needed especially in our major urban areas to reconcile land-useÌýrequirements in relation to employment, housing, transport, waste management andÌýenvironmental protection. The recent Greater Manchester Agreement between localÌýauthorities and the UK government, which provides the basis for a statutory spatialÌýplan and greater devolution of spending powers, represents an approach thatÌýshould be extended to other parts of England by right. It would combine city-levelÌýstrategic thinking with urban democracy.Ìý

3. The benefits of planning regulation should be recognised

Regulation has become somewhat of a dirty word in recent years, as the emphasisÌýhas been on trimming back rules, ‘red tape’ and any perceived ‘barriers to growth’ orÌý‘enterprise’. Further deregulation appears to be in the pipeline. This has been linkedÌýto a wider push to change the perceived culture of planning – from control towardsÌýbeing proactive and concerned with the delivery of development. Much of this changeÌýhas reduced the effectiveness of local planning and this must be reversed.

A good planning system certainly should be proactive in trying to deliver the rightÌýdevelopment and infrastructure in the right places, at the right time, and take aÌýpositive and engaging approach to producing a vision for the future. Yet planningÌýalso needs the power of regulation in order to be able to implement policies, preventÌýharm, control externalities, and maximise social and environmental benefit.ÌýRegulation is one of the mechanisms that make planning work. Without it, urbanÌýareas would be less attractive, less safe, more polluted and less well-planned toÌýmeet society’s needs. We can already see elements of these problems in our citiesÌýand urban areas.

A recent example of deregulation has been the increase in permitted developmentÌýrights for change of use from office to residential purposes in England. TheÌýgovernment has presented this as the solution to our housing crisis, but theÌýrelaxation of regulation has had a number of unintended consequences. In parts ofÌýLondon and the South East, established businesses are being evicted so that theirÌýbuildings can be converted to higher-income-generating housing. The House ofÌýCommons Communities and Local Government Committee has recently called forÌýthis relaxation of the Use Classes Order to be revoked. Relaxed rules are similarlyÌýundermining the ability of local authorities to provide more affordable housing inÌýhigh pressure areas and to deliver proper strategic plans for town centres.

In the housing market, in particular, there is a clear need for regulation alongsideÌýimproved strategy and urban design. History shows that the private housing marketÌýcannot provide for all housing needs; the trickle-down effect just does not work.ÌýIn some areas, such as London, the housing market is being hugely distorted by a deluge of domestic and overseas investment, largely because housing has become aÌýcommodity and an investment asset. In this context, planning regulation to ensureÌýthe provision of affordable housing in all new urban development is essential. ItÌýcannot substitute for the provision of low rent housing by public sector bodies suchÌýas local councils; it should rather be seen as a complement to a renewed programmeÌýof council housebuilding. However, regulation for affordable housing has been shownÌýto be able to provide a substantial quantity of below-market-cost housing to meetÌýurgent housing needs. Current policies that allow developers to demand theÌýrenegotiation of affordable housing elements and to refrain from providing financialÌýinformation for setting the amount of affordable housing should be replaced.

Planning regulation can also be used effectively to protect or re-provide SMEÌýbusiness space. Small businesses as a result would be inspired to invest in theirÌýbusinesses and localities, in the knowledge that their contribution to the city and itsÌýcitizens is valued and not subordinate to the twists and turns of the residentialÌýproperty market.

Planning regulations are not a barrier to economic growth. After all, in 2014, 88% ofÌýall planning applications were granted permission. Rather planning regulation is aÌýpublicly accessible system ensuring that developers meet certain agreed standardsÌýand empowering planners to negotiate improvements to schemes for the publicÌýbenefit. It also allows for the preservation of amenities and the protection of theÌýenvironment. We believe that the process of constantly reducing the ability of localÌýplanning authorities to control development and changes of use does more harmÌýthan good. Regulation – administered effectively and transparently – is what allowsÌýour planning system to perform its vital societal role. Through regulation, planningÌýcan help improve the quality of development.Ìý

4. Land reform is essential, including local land ownership and land value capture

Who controls and benefits from the ownership of land is a major determinant ofÌýsocial opportunity and effective place-making. Land ownership bestows financialÌýadvantage on private individuals and organisations, and the private control of landÌýcan deprive communities of the opportunities needed to develop and thrive. InÌý1947, the development rights pertaining to private land were nationalised. SinceÌýthen, the financial benefits of development have become increasingly concentratedÌýin the hands of private landowners, and there has been a gradual erosion of publicÌýplanning with many ‘permitted development rights’ returned to those same owners.ÌýThe ambitions of 1947 have been all but lost – a system of planning that was knownÌýand renowned around the world is now effectively broken. In order to compensate,Ìýplanning has involved itself in the indirect extraction of public goods throughÌýnegotiation with landowners and developers. But ‘planning gains’ are always smallÌýcompared to the unearned value increase enjoyed by private owners when land isÌýsold and developed, limiting public benefit and making it difficult to service sites withÌýnecessary infrastructure.

Measures are possible that would rebalance the advantages shared by privateÌýowners and society as a whole. Firstly, there needs to be a reiteration of theÌýcollective ownership of development rights in the UK. Secondly, more effective andÌýconsistent mechanisms should be introduced to capture and share the benefits ofÌýland value uplift. And thirdly, land reform is needed to enable communities, to takeÌýdirect control of local land assets for the purpose of community development.

Place development often stalls through failure to capture the land value uplift to fundÌýadequate infrastructure investment, and assuage local concerns that existing services will be overloaded. One approach would be for land to be bought atÌýexisting use value, and then sold on after planning permission is granted, with theÌýuplift in value used to fund infrastructure development. A similar system has beenÌýdeployed in the Garden Cities and New Towns in the past and is currently used inÌýGermany and the Netherlands. Currently, compulsory purchase is based onÌýintended use value. This needs to change, with land purchased at current use valueÌýplus an element of compensation to the landowner, as discussed by the LyonsÌýReview. Wider social and economic investments and activity generate the uplift and,Ìýtherefore, that uplift needs to be broadly shared.

Another complementary approach would be to introduce a land value tax as anÌýannual levy on land ownership. There are already a number of ways of capturingÌýchanges in land values: rates, stamp duty, Capital Gains Tax and inheritance tax. ButÌýto support local planning, land value taxation could be deployed to capture theÌýbenefits of development and re-use them for local investment. For example inÌýFrance, the Versement Transport operates as a local tax levied on businesses toÌýsupport infrastructure investment. Such a mechanism for generating funds locallyÌýand spending this on local infrastructure priorities could be a welcome policy tool inÌýareas of growth but this would need to be supplemented by mechanisms forÌýinvesting in low land value areas where capturing land value uplift is not an option.

Land reform offers the possibility of giving communities more control over localÌýdevelopment. Land reform has been happening in Scotland for more than a decade.ÌýThe Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 inter alia allowed communities to register anÌýinterest in land and purchase it if it came onto the market, with funds set aside by theÌýScottish Government to allow this to happen. This provision is not unlike the ‘right toÌýbid’ introduced by the Localism Act 2011 but with financial resourcing. What mightÌýland reform in England look like? The existing right to bid could be joined by aÌýmediated sales mechanism, giving communities the right to purchase land at currentÌýuse value, with a funding pool created from various sources, possibly including landÌýsale receipts from other compulsorily purchased sites put into a Community LandÌýFund. Those funds should be made available to community trusts wishing purchaseÌýland and assets for community use. If we are serious about tackling the housingÌýcrisis and creating attractive and sustainable cities, we need to consider these typesÌýof financial mechanisms.Ìý

5. The democratic deficit in planning must be tackled

The planning system – through spatial planning at national, regional and local scales,Ìýregulation of development proposals and proactive proposals for development – canÌýonly operate in the public interest if it is democratic. This means that it should allowÌýand encourage the full involvement of local communities alongside inputs from keyÌýstakeholders and be fully transparent in its decision-making.

The public at present often have a low opinion of the planning system and itsÌýopportunities for consultation and participation. Planning needs to be re-enchantedÌýwith the democratic ethos. At all scales, planners should deploy greater creativityÌýand resources should be made available for public engagement. DemocraticÌýinvolvement does not automatically happen; it has to be fostered. The potential ofÌýnew communication technologies could be deployed to bring planning debates to aÌýbroader audience but political parties should also engage in a debate on planningÌýissues that is more relevant to a wide range of community concerns. The lessons ofÌýpast attempts to engage community organisations and representatives at the urbanÌýand regional scale could be drawn upon, as with the involvement of civil societyÌýorganisations in Regional Assemblies.

The recent experience of neighbourhood planning highlights some importantÌýlessons. First, engaging communities requires skills, time, commitment andÌýresources. Planning department budgets, community grants and the education ofÌýplanners all have to reflect this. Second, there is a tendency for such neighbourhoodÌýplanning only to benefit communities who already ‘have’ or ‘can’; the result is furtherÌýinequality. Engagement strategies which actively give a voice to marginalisedÌýcommunities and, indeed, encourage a greater diversity of voices can helpÌýcounter-balance such inequality. Third, there will always be conflicts betweenÌýdifferent local viewpoints and a democratic form of local planning has to find waysÌýof responding to these in the public interest based on both participatory andÌýrepresentative democracy. Proactive mediation could be adopted on a regular basis.ÌýFourth, there is scope for creativity in community engagement. Hubs such as cafes,Ìýworkshop spaces and community centres can be foci for communities to gatherÌýtogether and can then be used to engage such communities in planning debates.

Above all, the planning system has to convince local communities of its ability toÌýdeliver urban change to their collective benefit. Enthusiasm for neighbourhoodÌýplanning is highly dependent on communities feeling they have the ability to influence their locality, to command the resources to achieve the change they wantÌýand to resist plans for their area being imposed from above with little local input.ÌýThus closing the democratic deficit in planning at local, city and regional scales isÌýalso dependent on the ability of the planning system to deliver and thus on theÌýimplementation of the other reforms discussed above.

About Five Radical Ideas

This document has been prepared by the followingÌýmembers of the ×î×¼µÄÁùºÏ²ÊÂÛ̳ Bartlett School of Planning inÌýconversation with their colleagues and is the outcomeÌýof ongoing discussion and debate.Ìý

It is our collectiveÌýview that the future of the planning system is in needÌýof urgent debate, conducted within and betweenÌýpolitical parties and across society as a whole. Only inÌýthis way, can disagreements on important issues beÌýresolved.Ìý

In such debate academic inputs of evidence,Ìýknowledge of international practices, evaluation of pastÌýpolicies and their impacts, and alternative framings andÌýexplanations all play a vital role. This is what we offerÌýand propose.