星空传媒

The planning system isn鈥檛 working. Planning and housing practitioners, politicians, businesses, environmental organisations and community groups all agree on this and last year鈥檚 green paper was a hotchpotch of proposals pandering to the competing objectives of all these diverse interests.

Instead of pausing for reflection and publishing a white paper, the government has rushed headlong into legislation without really understanding, or perhaps without wanting to understand, what root problems it is seeking to tackle or what it expects the planning system to achieve in future.

Recent rumours that the government was serious about providing a clear statutory purpose for planning were rather encouraging. I assumed 鈥� naively, it now seems 鈥� that this would include a commitment to provide 鈥渆veryone with the opportunity of a decent home 鈥� within socially cohesive communities鈥�. It appears the government has now backed off because it does not want to offend anyone. This is all too typical of the three main political parties鈥� cosy consensus on planning issues.

Perhaps deputy prime minister John Prescott will use the Communities Plan to clarify how the statutory strategic enabling role for housing authorities included in the draft housing bill will join up with the undefined role of planning authorities.

Are housing rather than planning authorities now at the forefront of enabling private housebuilders, registered social landlords and others to bring forward the full range of housing that is so obviously not being delivered at present? The myth is disappearing that housebuilders have either the underlying commitment or even the capacity to deliver the number of homes required, let alone of the quality and type demanded.

Tariffs
The one significant element of the green paper that has been dropped is the proposals to replace section 106 planning gain agreements with tariffs. Quite rightly, the proposals have been deemed too complicated. Nevertheless, these proposals were largely predicated on establishing a way for local authorities to finance and deliver more affordable housing. The draft bill is silent on this issue and we must now await the draft changes to circular 1/97 on planning obligations and circular 6/98 on planning and affordable housing.

A review of the latter is long overdue and should bring greater clarity to, among other things, the definition of 鈥渁ffordable housing鈥�, the targeting of sites for affordable housing and the setting of minimum site size thresholds in development plans.

The government is rushing into legislation without really understanding the problems it seeks to tackle or what it expects the planning system to achieve

Regional planning
So, what of the proposals that are included in the bill? The greater emphasis on regional planning via statutory regional spatial strategies is largely to be welcomed. This will enable better links with regional economic development strategies and regional housing strategies. Having observed the marked reluctance of numerous county council structure-planning authorities to provide sufficient housing overall or to engage in any meaningful role relative to affordable housing, I shed no tears over the demise of structure plans.

In principle, local development frameworks are to be welcomed as a means of establishing more up-to-date and relevant local development plans. The inability of planning authorities to keep their plans up to date has been one of the underlying reasons for their inability to negotiate affordable housing from developers.

Nevertheless, I believe the government has seriously underestimated the complexities of producing plans that are subject to wider consultation, speedily produced, legally robust, easily updated and precise, yet flexible to changing circumstances.

Applications
The changes to the planning application process are largely unhelpful to applicants. The requirement to involve local people before the submission of planning applications is likely to fuel, rather than quell, nimbyism. Removal of the ability to submit duplicate planning applications, the abolition of outline planning permissions and the reduction in the period of planning permissions are also unhelpful.

The bill, like the green paper that preceded it, is a mixed bag.

The promised culture change is unlikely since the reforms lack purpose. There are elements that appear positive, subject to detail, but it will be at least five years before this is clear. There are no obvious immediate benefits to the delivery of affordable housing.