With a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State for Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, we could see some significant changes affecting planning and development.
But will we? We know from the way in which the 2020 Planning White Paper was received that policy so progressive is politically toxic and so unlikely to lead to success in the next general election. And the draft Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill – a substantially watered-down substitute - has made fairly smooth progress through the Commons. Once enacted, we predict a relatively uncontroversial, and unremarkable, impact on planning and development.
In reality, the post-pandemic aftermath, the war in Ukraine, fuel crisis and potential recession are probably higher on the new Prime Minister’s agenda than substantial reform to the planning system.
And yet without radical reform, the housing crisis and climate crisis will continue to exert financial, social and considerable practical pressure on the lives of many.
So much rests on the role of Simon Clarke as Secretary of State for housing.
For an industry increasingly frustrated by planning moratoriums, the failure of Local Plans to progress and an unprecedented backlog of planning decisions, it is encouraging to learn that the new Minister spoke out in favour of the 2020 Planning White Paper and the need to free up land for housing. On the other hand, he is supportive of Liz Truss’ pledge to abolish ‘Stalinist’ national housing targets and it is hard to imagine how the two can be reconciled without some radical alternative.
It will be interesting to see how, and how quickly, the new administration responds to the pressing issue of nutrient neutrality, and whether the shortcomings of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill can be remedied as it works its way through Parliament. Such shortcomings, in our view, are the increased focus on ‘local voices’ in planning, which although important must be heard within an appropriate framework: the three rounds of consultation on design codes alone is perhaps not the most efficient way of delivering new homes quickly and efficiently. If substantial new settlements are to come forward – and sustainable greenfield development is the only way of genuinely addressing the housing crisis – the system needs to change, to prevent a minority of affluent homeowners from scuppering the chances of others getting onto the first rung of the housing ladder.
We suggest an ‘infrastructure first’ approach, whereby large-scale mixed-use development, based around employment and sustainable transport, is brought together with infrastructure and climate considerations to provide a speedy route to delivery. We recommend that the Local Plan system is revised, although perhaps not as outlined in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill: we need a more holistic, less political and therefore less adversarial system, one with a regional or national overview – ideally a national plan for housing and development. In Liz Truss’ support for new opportunity zones with deregulated planning regulations, there is hope that something of this nature is on the horizon.
New preferences and priorities aside, there is already much uncertainty in the planning system. We are still awaiting the National Development Management Policies which were due to be appended to the NPPF in July. Changes to the NPPF itself – widely thought to support necessary progress towards net zero – were anticipated in January but appear some way off.
With Simon Clarke’s appreciation that something must be done, his willingness to consider radical change but also a shared view with that of the Prime Minister, we can tentatively hope that he has what it takes to bring about necessary change in a way that might address the significant housing, climate and financial challenges of this new political era.
