Planning reform in England

Trying to reform permitted development rights, use classes, green belts, housing supply, heritage designations and other elements of the planning system is a risky business.

1 Introduction
2 Planning white paper
3 Use classes and permitted development rights
4 Housing, green belts and environmental impact
5 Heritage reform
6 Conclusions
7 Related articles on Designing Buildings

Introduction

One of the constants for the planning system in England over the past few decades has been reform. Some reforms have been about tweaking the system. However, on occasions reform has been more radical, such as the creation of development corporations in the 1980s and the introduction of neighbourhood planning in 2011. Such reforms have been controversial, at least for some people, but have led to longer-term shifts in the culture of planning and regeneration.

Planning reform is a risky business and can make headline news, as demonstrated by the recent planning white paper. This was identified as one of the factors in the government’s defeat in the Chesham and Amersham by-election. A decade or so previously, the first draft of the National Planning Policy Framework was opposed in the media by the National Trust and others. As a consequence, the NPPF was published in a significantly modified form, with more emphasis on sustainability.

Planning white paper

The planning white paper ‘Planning for the Future’ was one of the later initiatives associated with Dominic Cummings – no stranger to controversy. The white paper (which read more like a green paper) attracted a bad reaction, not just from opposition parties, but from the government’s own benches and from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee (now the Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities Committee).

The planning white paper addressed heritage very much as a peripheral issue, perhaps due to it falling largely within the remit of a different ministry. Nonetheless, the proposed broad-brush zoning system (growth, renew, protect) sat uncomfortably with heritage protection, not least in historic town and city centres. This was highlighted in consultation responses, evidence and briefings prepared by the IHBC.

Following Michael Gove’s appointment as Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities, there have been increasingly clear indications that the more controversial elements of the white paper have been dropped. Indeed, there is now to be no separate planning bill. Any changes will be achieved through levelling-up legislation or changes to policy. The government has made clear that communities will continue to have the opportunity to comment on planning proposals, which has been interpreted as meaning that the proposal for local plans to grant planning permission for ‘growth’ sites will not be taken forward.

The planning white paper largely ignored neighbourhood planning, despite this being one of the few reforms to have helped to achieve more growth. Neighbourhood planning was mentioned mainly in the context of design, despite many neighbourhood plans having a strong focus on social and economic planning. This assumption is perhaps behind the government’s pilot programme to allow communities to prepare street plans, which is also the subject of the Planning (Street Plans) Bill. Experience with neighbourhood planning suggests that this narrow scope will be unlikely to deliver the community’s aspirations. Indeed, some consider it to be a watering down of neighbourhood planning.

The surviving elements from the white paper are understood to be the digitisation of the planning system and the reformed infrastructure levy. With the latter, questions remain on how a more standardised approach would work in areas where there are viability challenges. Many remain concerned that getting rid of section 106, which has been touted by ministers as a key benefit of the new levy, would make it harder to deliver affordable housing or other infrastructure gains.

Use classes and permitted development rights

No less controversial is the introduction of Use Class E and expanded permitted development rights, including for upwards extensions and changes of use from commercial to residential uses. Commercial to residential rights have been controversial since first introduced, with some well-publicised examples of sub-standard accommodation. More recent amendments have sought to address this with more rigorous space and daylight standards. However, rights have also been expanded to ground-floor frontage units, which has undermined high street policies in hundreds of local plans and neighbourhood plans. There is clearly potential for harm to the character and vitality of high streets, although it should be noted that listed buildings and scheduled monuments are excluded from the rights. Prior approval is required in conservation areas; this allows specified issues to be considered, including consideration of ‘character and sustainability’ where ground floors are being converted.

Use Class E has had a similar undermining effect. It could actually compromise the regeneration of brownfield sites outside of town centres, where office and enterprise space may be desirable, but not other town-centre uses.

The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee undertook an inquiry into permitted development rights in 2021. Its chair has recently said: ‘Housing has a role to play in mixed-use high streets, but extending permitted development rights from Use Class E to residential is not the right way to do it.’

A current private member’s bill would give local authorities power to apply local design standards for permitted development, and to refuse permitted development proposals that would be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of an individual or community.

Housing, green belts and environmental impact

Perhaps one of the most controversial elements of current planning policy is the requirement for a five-year housing land supply. A failure to achieve a five-year land supply has formed the basis for numerous speculative planning applications, and has been a means to effectively bypass policies for the protection of the natural and historic environments.

In some areas there is simply insufficient capacity to accommodate the five-year land supply without causing serious environmental harm, for example in Torbay. Research by Planning magazine suggests that 37 per cent of local authorities lack a five-year land supply.

A related issue is the release of green belt land for housing. Achieving the five-year land supply has been the basis for green belt release in some areas. Recent reassurance from the prime minister over protection of green belts sits uncomfortably with the policy on five-year land supply. Ministers have recently suggested that the five-year land supply may become advisory only.

From a heritage perspective, it is important to avoid any presumption that new housing is a threat. For example, new housing around historic towns can be key to enhancing the vitality and viability of the high street. But the five-year land supply has been a blunt tool, often causing considerable harm.

First Homes is a further recent reform to planning policy and guidance. A ‘First Home’ is a specific kind of discounted market sale housing, which the government says should be considered to meet the definition of ‘affordable housing’ for planning purposes. However, these appear to be based on the assumptions of high-growth land economies rather than the needs of areas with weaker land and property economies, where the main barrier to housing is not affordability, but viability and lack of local economic opportunity.

Other reforms proposed include simplification of environmental legislation, including habitat regulation assessment, strategic environmental assessment and sustainability assessment. There is little clarity at present on how this will be achieved, while fulfilling international obligations. At the same time, advice on nutrient neutrality (designing development alongside mitigation measures to reduce levels of nutrient pollution) issued by Natural England has effectively halted house building in many local authority areas.

Heritage reform

As stated above, the planning white paper dealt with heritage in peripheral terms. The last attempt at more substantial reform in England was a heritage bill in 2008, which was abandoned as a consequence of the banking crisis. That bill sought to merge protection of scheduled monuments with that of listed buildings. This was despite most scheduled monuments being incapable of productive economic use, while listed buildings were tested against economic viability. This apparent paradox was questioned at the time and no solution was forthcoming. The banking crisis may have provided a lucky escape.

Much of the language from the bill found its way into planning policy, which has created a disconnect and confusion between current legislation and policy. For example, planning policy considers setting to be part of significance (which makes little sense), while the 1990 act refers to special architectural or historic interest and setting (which makes much more sense). More than a decade later, these inconsistencies remain.

This could be addressed by revising national planning policy on heritage and some of the guidance prepared by Historic England. Revising guidance would provide an opportunity to address recent changes and challenges, such as the levelling-up agenda, economic and land-use consequences of the pandemic, and climate change.

Conclusions

The shift of heritage to a separate ministry in 1990 was not necessarily a positive move. Heritage has been viewed in narrower cultural terms, and has not always been well integrated into the wider environmental, social and economic agendas. Too often heritage has been an afterthought, as in the Planning White Paper. This makes heritage vulnerable to poorly conceived reform. Heritage is still often perceived as a barrier to growth, rather than as one of the means to achieving sustainable growth. The Conservation, People and Places All Party Parliamentary Group’s inquiry into the values of heritage, now at the reporting stage, will perhaps help to challenge such misconceptions.

This article originally appeared in the Institute of Historic Building Conservation’s (IHBC’s) Context 172, published in June 2022. It was written by Dave Chetwyn, managing director of Urban Vision Enterprise CIC, chair of the board of the National Planning Forum, and IHBC communications and outreach secretary. Thanks to David Blackman for his input.