Planning more clearly is the way to delegate decision-making

Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat, so it must be time for the now traditional festive update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), so beloved by those of us who get to read it over the Christmas holidays.

Planning reform is certainly in the news. We expect the updated NPPF imminently, and on Monday, the government announced that it was planning to meet house builders’ long-standing policy request to strip away local councillors’ ability to decide on planning applications that are compliant with their local plan.

That sounds reasonable. You can understand why house builders get frustrated when elected members, who, as developers often point out, are rarely qualified, turn down local applications due to local political opposition. Make room for the experts!

And yet, I have always been a little nervous about this policy proposal, certainly in isolation. This is partly because most decisions are already delegated (96 per cent, according to the government’s own consultation paper). Planning committees can also be YIMBY, insisting on making decisions themselves in order to approve new development. We are increasingly seeing this in London. For example, this recent Kensington and Chelsea mansard roof approval and this superb infill in Deptford both relied on councillors to approve them in the face of officials’ reluctance.

> Also read: Finalised changes to National Planning Policy Framework to be published tomorrow

> Also read: Rayner announces plan to bypass local committees to stop developments ‘getting stuck in the system’

However, my main concern is where councillors do have NIMBY instincts. I worry that without wider reform, the idea risks setting local democracy more firmly against development. We desperately, deeply need more homes, but a system perceived to be done “at” local democracy rather than “with” it can only last so long. Collaboration beats coercion. I know from dozens of meetings that I have attended over the years that communities up and down the country already feel that they are the victims, not the beneficiaries, of (for them) unaffordable development with major unmet infrastructure consequences.

As is now well known, the English local planning system is uniquely discretionary and deliberately leaves huge scope for case-by-case decision-making. This is the key fact about English planning. I have always worried that the risk of obligatory delegation is that, without greater planning clarity, it risks becoming democracy denied, not democracy brought forward. This just leads to even vaguer local plans to circumvent delegation or, as we’ve already seen emerging in southern England, to the election of self-declared local and independent councillors whose main intent is to stop all development. In other words, the policy might achieve the opposite of what is intended.

My advice to the government would be to make use of powers it already has

Doubtless, the government’s judgement is that the reimposition of housing targets (a hearty amen to that) and the risk of “approval by appeal” will head off that danger. I hope they are correct. The good news is that the government has another relevant weapon in its armoury if it wishes to deploy it.

My advice to the government to make this idea work would be, rather than just waiting on the new Planning and Infrastructure Bill – which will take years – to make use of powers it already has to reduce the level of unpredictability in the current system. To that end, Create Streets are today publishing a short policy note on how the government could make use of existing legislation.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) took extensive powers over planning, compulsory purchase, design coding, and other areas. Due to lack of time and focus, the previous government failed to take advantage of these. Much of the massive Act remains unimplemented. The LURA therefore offers many low-hanging opportunities for the government to shape and enable development.

In the LURA, the government took the power to set National Development Management Policies (NDMPs), which would take precedence over overlapping local development management policies. Part of the rationale for this is to harmonise local policies to make the system more accessible for builders, especially small builders. It is easier for small builders to learn to work with one national flood risk management policy than 330 different local ones. Because local plans will need to cover less, it will also make it easier for local authorities to update their local plans.

For example, and in the context of planning committee delegation, carbon standards differ across the country. Some local planning authorities require Passivhaus standards, while other authorities have different Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) requirements. Some require on-site renewable energy generation or heat pumps. Others do not.

Long, verbal, imprecise, and contradictory local plans create planning risk. They are the enemies of local democracy and of development, the scourge of living standards, and an albatross around all our necks

A national development policy could set out standard national requirements on energy efficiency and carbon emissions. That would enable the construction industry to standardise, reducing costs for providers of social housing and leaving more value to be captured from private development to fund more council homes. This is analogous to the simplification of space standards a few years ago. Having such a clear framework would not just be useful for house builders. By having options which can be picked locally, it would also make it easier for councils to achieve policy clarity so that it is easier to understand what should or should not be delegated to officers.

In short, if they are going to oblige delegation, the government should use NDMPs to reduce planning uncertainty in parallel.

My advice to local councillors would be similar. Write a proper local plan that is regulatory, not just more verbal guff. Don’t leave it up to the lawyers and officials, but achieve proper control of the system, as you are elected to do, by writing a proper strategic local plan that allocates land for development. Use visual and numerical design codes to say what it should look like and be like, as the government’s planning consultation encourages at paragraph 29. That way, you won’t be forced to accept development that can be credibly said to meet your vague verbal local plan but which a majority of your voters hate and fear. The good news is that writing an authority design strategy and code need not be nearly as complex and expensive as some of the big consultancies like to pretend.

Long, verbal, imprecise, and contradictory local plans create planning risk. They are the enemies of local democracy and of development, the scourge of living standards, and an albatross around all our necks.

Both national and local government have their roles to play in reducing planning uncertainty and setting clear and locally popular “quality asks”. It’s time to get cracking. The will has been lacking, but many of the tools are already in the toolbox.

> Also read: Labour must deliver on its promised planning reforms to drive economic growth

> Also read: How suburban intensification could hold the key to delivering Labour’s 1.5m homes target