Holistic planning reforms needed, not just abstract housing targets
With Labour changing legislation to deliver 370,000 homes per year this Parliament, we consider the importance of local government leading on major projects to understand needs including biodiversity net gain and essential service provision.
The recent proposals for local planning reforms could represent a significant shift in how we approach urban development and housing delivery. As someone deeply involved in strategic planning and infrastructure for many years, I find the suggested reforms both promising and challenging, offering a mix of potential and pitfalls that require careful navigation.
One of the most encouraging proposals is the emphasis on collaboration between central and local government. For too long, local planning departments have been hampered by budget cuts and a lack of autonomy over planning fees. The suggestion that local authorities may be able to set their own planning fees is a huge change. It acknowledges the reality that the costs of planning services vary across the country and that local authorities are best positioned to determine the appropriate fee levels.
Equally promising is the proposed reintroduction of strategic planning and sub-regional partnerships working together to drive sustainable infrastructure and housing delivery. By focusing on the specific needs of different regions, we can ensure that development is sustainable, matching the unique characteristics of each area.
However, alongside the positives are significant challenges that cannot be overlooked. Most importantly, the methodology for calculating housing numbers. The new government’s commitment to delivering 1.5million homes during this Parliament translates to a staggering 370,000 homes per year. While the ambition is commendable, the method for determining these numbers is flawed. By relying on supply-side measures such as housing stock changes and affordability indexes, the new methodology risks setting targets that are disconnected from actual population needs.
This could lead to a host of unintended consequences. For instance, if a local authority is assigned a significantly higher housing target based on this methodology, it may be forced to plan for infrastructure, e.g. schools, GP surgeries etc, that are not actually needed based on current population trends. This kind of planning, driven more by abstract numbers than realities on the ground, is unlikely to serve the long-term interests of communities. It could also strain already stretched local resources, diverting funds away from where they are needed.
Another area of concern is the implementation of biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements. While BNG is mandated by legislation and represents an important step towards sustainable development, it is already impacting the viability of certain sites, particularly in terms of affordable housing delivery.
Balancing environmental requirements with the need for new housing highlights the need for a more integrated approach to planning, but the unresolved relationship between local nature recovery strategies and statutory local plans remains a significant hurdle. Until this issue is addressed, we risk creating a planning system that is more cumbersome and less effective at delivering the outcomes we need.
What I feel is missing from the current conversation is the ‘how’. How will we deliver the ambitious housing numbers being proposed? How will we ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to support new developments? How will we balance the need for new housing with the equally important need to protect our environment?
These questions are crucial, but they remain largely unanswered at present.
To address these challenges, I believe we need to continue fostering collaboration between central and local government. The reforms should include dedicated funding programs that align with the commitments outlined in local plans. This kind of alignment would help to ensure that developments are sustainable and reflective of local needs.
There is a strong case to be made for the further decentralisation of funds and resources. Local authorities are best placed to understand the unique needs of their communities. By giving them greater control over resources, we can ensure that local plans are not just plans in name, but actionable strategies that deliver real benefits to the people who live in those communities.
By focusing on collaboration and appropriate distribution of resources we can navigate these challenges and ensure that the reforms lead to sustainable, well planned development that truly meets the needs of our communities. The success of these reforms will depend not just on what is proposed, but on how we work together to implement them effectively.
Paul Barnard MBE is Chair of The Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport [ADEPT]’s Planning Working Group and Service Director at Plymouth City Council, looks at proposed reforms for local planning and outlines the much needed changes to our current planning system.
More features:
UN built environment goals need a consistent carbon measurement system
Image: Ivan Bandura