Could the Raynsford Review of Planning, which published its interim findings in June, give the UK’s much-maligned system an overhaul that everyone can get behind? Gary Stephens of planning consultancy Marrons Planning takes a look
Frustrations with the UK planning system are widespread, from planners and local authorities right through to developers, housebuilders and individuals. The urgent need for an overhaul has been evident for a number of years. However, now, in 2018, it seems that the planning sector may be on the brink of getting the shot in the arm it really needs.
The Raynsford Review of Planning, conducted by the TCPA former housing minister Nick Raynsford, recently published its interim report. This document seeks to suggest how the UK planning system can be improved in order to better serve the professionals who work daily on its behalf, and the external individuals and group who have to navigate its depths.
According to the report, this overhaul is needed not only for practical reasons, but also to refocus the aims of UK planning on sustainable, practical development, which serves the population as a whole.
Even though the final report is due to be published later this year, the interim publication itself is radical to a degree. It has been a significant number of years since anyone took a step back and evaluated the core purpose of planning in the UK. While many of the themes of the report will be familiar to both planners and non-planners – for instance, the need for sustainable development, a renewed focus in planning for public interest and the localism agenda – the whole document is interwoven with a general sense of disenchantment with the system as a whole.
This feeling of disenchantment ultimately stems from the system’s inherent complexity; the number of agencies, processes and policies involved is simply phenomenal. Even to the untrained eye, it must be obvious there is some work needing to be done to simplify and streamline.
The review rightly highlights the number of reforms over the years as contributing factors to the system’s complexity. These have largely been minor reforms but ultimately haven’t made the system any more effective.
One highlighted in particular is the government’s policy of granting permitted development rights for the conversion of certain buildings without needing planning permission. While this was ultimately intended to speed up the delivery of new housing, the review argues that this has only led to an increase in poor quality housing, which lacks the infrastructure and facilities to support it.
Another key element of the review is the idea of the ‘purpose’ that underpins the planning system. While it is extremely important that all planning in the UK works towards a common goal – for example, sustainable development – there is a feeling within the industry that the review has missed a trick here by not discussing how the system is structured and delivered.
The planning world is under-resourced and understaffed across the board and the system must be redesigned in such a way that the desired outcomes – for example, better housing provision – can be driven through at its current capacity. What we have at the moment are processes that are overly cumbersome and bureaucratic; not designed for the 21st century.
The review makes a good start at tackling what is by all respects a mammoth task. However, it must not lose sight of the changes that will make a positive impact to people on a daily basis.
For individuals and companies navigating the process of gaining planning consent, the speed and quality of decision making is an issue. Time and resource pressures in many planning departments mean that poor decisions are made, which in many cases are thought to be inadequately evidenced and unfair. It does make sense: the quicker applications have to be submitted and processed, the greater the chances that poor judgements will be made. Additional time would allow applications and schemes to be examined in a more considered fashion.
Directly linked to this is an issue that the review perhaps failed to pick up on explicitly: the shortage of planners and other related professionals – for example, ecologists and engineers – in local government. This is having a huge impact on the sector and is directly affecting the implementation of the current system. Any further proposals must take this into account and put forward a system that is significantly less labour-intensive.
The review has not been commissioned by the government and has been positioned in such a way as to spur it into taking legislative action. However, for the proposals to come to life, all parties involved in the UK planning industry must unite; it must be led by the government, with the planning profession working with local authorities to dictate how a new system would be supplied and interpreted.
The interim review has certainly given many across the UK food for thought. It’s shone a light on the industry and brought issues to the fore that we all knew were there, but perhaps felt weren’t being recognised and addressed. It’s a good start but it will be interesting to see if grand proposals are actually translated into meaningful actions.
Gary Stephens is a planning director at specialist planning consultancy, Marrons Planning, part of law firm, Shakespeare Martineau.
Gary Stephens
Planning Director
Marrons Planning
Tel: +44 (0)1789 339 963
gary.stephens@marrons-planning.co.uk
Twitter: @marronsplanning
