The contortions Sir Keir Starmer’s government to preserve the existing call for sites (CFE) and local plan system (LPS) , in order, whisper it, to disguise confrontation with opponents of local spatial change is impressive and embarrassing. SPS’s and SDS’s are the latest example. Common sense, decades of experience of grim land changes of use, excessive house prices, congested roads, pokey, barren estates of boxy homes, a collapse in trust in town planning and town planners are the ugly evidence of planning policy failure on a grand scale over 40+ years.
Reality says future land use change to deliver England’s national needs demands must happen, and happen promptly.. Reality also says the spatial choices these needs create at decision level must reflect local dreams and local fears. The CFE and LPS system of delivery do not work. The system is broken. More legislation fiddling with the existing hurdles based building land supply system won’t either. Layer upon layer of negative rules, creating ever smaller paths to be navigated to achieve planning consent is contrary to history, and guarantees enterprise and initiative will be snuffed out. With these creative strengths lost, prosperity and growth are binned too.
The role of shrewd government is to enable happy change and avoid unhappy change. It demands governments with the courage to face down vested interests. Instead, in a world of progress and spatial change central government must learn to think like a property developer. Having seen the lost opportunities that opponents of local change create government must clear the decks of decades of creeping, strangulating debris, quiet convenience and unholy alliance. . This spring clean of rules means the presumption that consent to build is automatic is once again placed on the throne. In practice as well as in theory, regardless of the layers of blocking rules, a simplified process must be enshrined in a trusted process of authorisation. Zoning is the obvious one, but Boris Johnson’s attempt failed. Another case of political abdication. There is another option. It is called colour coding.
Brownfield first; grey belt second; white land next; green belt last and AONB’s never. Confused.,? You are not alone. Try this. White land, or while belt if that is easier, has existed for years in the world of town planning, but remains the neglected, hidden away zonal embarrassment. It is land to which no protection policies apply and therefore in the unfettered world of the open market is available for building. But local councils do not like white land for this reason. We know why. Their rationing based thinking of land release rejects such freedom loving categories of the pure American dream and believes, spatially at least, the state, well the local council knows better. And I agree too! The colour of the coat I wear in the High Street is my concern for one day. . The size of the house I build on my house plot for the next 100 years is your concern too. Fair enough, I say. Except the state, well I actually mean local councils in practice, are scared of taking on this cloak of freedom. We live in a strange world of political paradox. The Conservatives say they believe in freedom of choice but their local councils fear local land use change above all else. Bit inconsistent for believers in capitalism with minimal intervention, but that’s life! Labour, supposedly the party of central control and the big state fears taking on the role of spatial decision taker too, and will do all it can to avoid this potentially benign and miraculous role in place creation. Although at least they can see that from the nation’s perspective it is time for spatial change. Strange isn’t it!
Some say we are a nation divided and no longer at ease with ourselves or our nation’s future role. Perhaps we know at heart the truth is painful. Every nation carries it share of hypocrisy. And we do too. And Happy Easter too.
Ian Campbell
19 April 2025
