How is the government proposing to change the planning system? In a very big way. Since the English planning system was introduced in 1947, it has always been discretionary, meaning planning applications are assessed against a local plan on a case-by-case basis, with permission decided by a democratically elected planning committee of local councillors. The new system proposes to do away with all that. Land will instead be classified into three zones, with planning permission awarded automatically if proposals meet certain criteria. What are the three planned new zones? For growth New homes, hospitals, schools, shops and offices will be allowed automatically. For renewal Proposals will be given “permission in principle”, subject to basic checks, largely on urban and brownfield sites. For protection Preserving protected areas like the green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
How would this speed things up? The idea is that detailed local plans, which can take councils seven years to put together, will be abolished in favour of simplified housing plans and “design codes” to be prepared within 30 months. If a scheme meets the code, it would automatically get permission. The government is also proposing a “fast-track for beauty” system to encourage developers to bring forward higher quality proposals – a recommendation straight from a commission headed by the late and philosopher Roger Scruton. Is the planning system responsible for the shortage of homes? There is no evidence that the planning system is an obstacle to house building. Records compiled by the Local Government Association show that about 90% of planning applications are approved, while there are more than a million homes with planning permission that have not yet been built. How will the public have a say on new developments? With difficulty. The move to a zonal system reduces the possibility for public input and democratic accountability by half. England currently has a two-stage process, where local councillors and the public can comment on both the formation of the local plan, and on individual planning applications. The proposed reforms would give only one opportunity for democratic oversight, when the design code is first prepared. This could be many years in advance of particular schemes being given the green light. What are the implications of moving to a zonal planning system? In theory, a zonal system creates certainty: developers should be able to know what will and will not be allowed on a given site. Development in accordance with a code is automatically approved, as is any development not specifically prohibited by the code. Such a system sounds simple, but it creates fertile ground for lawyers to battle over anything that might be considered novel or innovative, which might not be covered by the restrictive code. How good a zonal system is comes down to the quality and scope of the code, and an effective one takes years to hone. Because there is no flexibility to respond to new circumstances at the final consent stage, every aspect has to be considered in minute detail in advance and written into the zonal plan. The zoning resolutions for New York City, for example, stretch to more than 4,300 pages.
What about affordable housing and community infrastructure? At present, developers contribute to affordable housing and things like parks and playgrounds through section 106 and the community infrastructure levy. Both of these would be scrapped and replaced with a new infrastructure levy that will be a fixed proportion of the value of the development, above a set threshold. This sounds straightforward in principle, but there is no guarantee that developers will not be able to negotiate down their obligations on grounds of financial viability, as they do at present. The government is also proposing to extend the exemption from section 106 for small sites, to help developers “bounce back from the economic impact of coronavirus” – meaning they won’t be obliged to provide affordable housing. What is the first homes scheme? The government is introducing a new “first homes” scheme to offer new-build homes at a 30% discount for local people, key workers and first-time buyers. The discount will be locked into the home in perpetuity, ensuring future buyers can continue to benefit from it. It remains to be seen how this will be funded. Could it translate to another subsidy for house builders, in the mould of the help to buy scheme?