Amongst serious planning observators there seems to be a consensus that provided the perceived failures of the local plan led system are removed all will be well. In other words the housing deficit will, in the long term, be removed as councils are compelled to build the housing numbers dished out by government. This prospect sounds exciting. But is this true? Will it actually happen? Most of all, will we like what we see? I doubt it.
All the same there may be some truth in this hope, but in my opinion the spatial outcome that future generations will live with, will disclose an expensive, unwelcome and uncoordinated mess. No one will have pride in the results. Premiums values, the measure of spatial success, will not happen. If I am correct it matters. We need to look deeper.
The local plan led system depends upon the ‘call for sites’ system. As these sites are not selected by local councils, but by their owners, and as the owners first priority rightly is to protect and enhance their own best interests, it means the sites put forward are unlikely to be part of a long term, big vision for the area endorsed by the local council. . Quite the reverse will apply. The owners will often be competing with one another. In spatial terms, the social/community needs assessed in terms the physical distribution will be incidental. The actual outcome on the ground, ie. the spatial solution will be haphazard and disconnected. Thinking it through, can you plan new building in accordance with local priorities on the basis of a haphazard spatial policy, and no guidance of the delivery timetable? It seems unlikely. But I cannot be sure, as my own experience over several decades is private sector led. So I am surprised that the many weighty planning commentators who have extensive public sector experience tend to endorse the current local plan led system. Why do they think that layer upon layer of regulatory administration control, and ideological led councils who follow, and do not lead will rebuild trust in a broken system? Leading a donkey to water comes to mind. I’d rather have a pedigree horse raring to go, lined up in the starting box at Royal Ascot. . Instead we need best in class local leaders. Surely what is more likely to happen is that, if all the obvious local barriers to change are removed, but the plan led system which remains, built on spatial haphazardry the local outcome will be more local anger and more disillusionment with the planning system? New homes will continue to built here and there like Topsy! It looks like one more abdication of civic duty by local leaders. It is time to face reality. Local land owners are not the appropriate group to plan a community’s spatial future. But unless the local plan system is dismantled, this is what will continue to happen, continuing to feed anger and distrust in planners and the planning system.
By the way, there is another problem. How can strategic planning, led by local communities thrive if the choice of sites, ie. of locations are not within the gift of local councils? Am I missing something?
Instead I believe that at the end of the current cycle of local plans, they must be replaced by a long term sub-regional growth plans for each area, led by and master planned by local councils or local development corporations. To deliver the community’s priorities, they must have responsibility for the ownership and sale of building land. Without this reality which enables premium values creation and releases 100% land value capture, we may build many more new homes. But we will also incur far more distrust in the planning system. Is this sustainable planning?
Ian Campbell
30 December 2024
