Opportunities and challenges arising from the new government’s planning programme

The election of a new Labour government will bring new opportunities and challenges in the realm of planning. With a target to build 1.5 million homes and a large push on social and affordable housing, the new government is likely to deliver significant changes. Dr Ashley Bowes, Isabella Buono and Zack Simons outline the implications for plan-making development management and other controls.

What granular changes might the new government deliver? Dr Ashely Bowes

The most immediate change our industry will notice is the deletion or revocation of the December 2023 National Planning Policy Framework. The. New government described it in their manifesto as ‘damaging’ and their initial reaction is to restore national mandatory housing targets. It may be done through introducing consultation but more likely will be done by issuing a ministerial statement stating this has been withdrawn and the 2021 framework will be used for all purposes. Nevertheless, a number of plans submitted predating the 2023 framework are still being examined under that 2021 version. It is less clear what happens for the planning authorities who decided to wait and submit under the 2023 framework. The language in the manifesto suggests there is unlikely to be a transition period, and that those authorities will simply have to plan under the 2021 framework.

We will likely see a return to regional planning. This is with the view to deliver a staggering 1.5 million new homes over the course of the next parliament. The government says it will not be afraid to ensure local authorities will have an up-to-date plan by making full use of their intervention powers. The incoming ministers already have an extensive set of powers; they can already direct an authority to prepare a plan or do it themselves under section 27 of the 2004 act and can direct authorities not to adopt or withdraw a document from consultation. We can all expect to see a far more muscular approach to exercising intervention powers, which is most likely to have an immediate effect on plan making.

Still, all of this comes with acknowledging more funding is needed, but the government is aware of this and asserts it will fund at least some of this by increasing stamp duty on non UK residents. However, it isn’t clear that this will be enough. The overall message for those who have been waiting to push the button on more controversial sites in green belts, now is the time to press on with plans.

Regarding the green belt, with the removal of the 2023 policy, the suggestion is that the discretionary nature of the green belt as a location to accommodate housing needs has gone. We are now going to look at what is going to be a more nuanced approach to the green belt. There is a signal that lower quality green belts or ‘grey belt’ sites will be prioritised as an area for development. Indeed, the new government tells us that brownfield alone will not solve the housing crisis, therefore leaving open the status of green belts to review.

We can therefore expect to see a more sequential and expressly sequential approach to development. Notably, we are told this will all be subject to ‘golden rules’ that look at development, communities and nature. Anyone promoting a development site should have a well-thought-out biodiversity net gain offer and a plan for community infrastructure on site or in the surrounding area.

Whilst the new government will show a more nuanced approach to the green belt, it will not be a free for all. The Labour manifesto emphasises local communities shaping house building in their area and Labour still insists it will preserve the green belt. This remains a significant constraint on building on the greenbelt, even if the approach is more flexible than the previous government’s.

Finally, the new government will make commitments to nutrient neutrality. This suggests that the government will unlock building of homes without compromising environmental protections. A big clue lies in the amendment Labour put in to the House of Lords in the Levelling Up bill last summer, and letter in The Times by Angela Rayner. It implied that Labour requires neutrality mitigation as a pre-commencement condition. It also stated that affordable housing developments in a nutrient effective catchment area would constitute an imperative reason of overriding public interest. They also would support pollution reduction at source and introduce guidelines on nutrient mitigation plans

The impact of the new government on development management, Isabella Buono

There were four headline points on development management in the manifesto – relating to:

1. The presumption in favour of sustainable development;
2. Brownfield first;
3. Grey belt; and
4. Design.

First, the manifesto told us a Labour government would “reform and strengthen” the presumption in favour of sustainable development. That will presumably require changes to paragraph 11 of the NPPF, but we are still waiting to see the detail on this. One option would be to revisit the trigger for engaging the tilted balance. Another would be to revisit the list of footnote 7 policies which provide a “clear reason for refusal”, such that the tilted balance is disapplied.

The second point – prioritising the development of PDL – is of course nothing new. It was a thread running through policy back in 1998, was a frequent refrain of the last government, and is already reflected in the NPPF. Something which is potentially new is the proposal to fast track approval of urban brownfield sites.

The “grey belt” designation will also be new. The thrust of the proposals seems to be a new sequential test, although it’s not clear whether this will apply at both the plan making and decision taking stages. It is also not clear whether the government intends to go further and dilute the ‘very special circumstances’ test for Green Belt schemes.

Lastly, regarding design, we were told in the manifesto that “Labour wants exemplary development to be the norm and not the exception”. We were not told what changes to the Framework that would require – it may well be none. Still, at the risk of reading too much into it, it is interesting that Labour chose to use the word ‘exemplary’. This might suggest some movement away from the subjective notion of ‘beauty’ and towards a more objective policy test.

Strategic planning and new towns, Zack Simons

Of course, strategic planning and new towns are not new ideas.

On strategic planning, the “New Labour” government in 1997 government brought about the 2003 Barker review which in turn led to stronger ‘top down’ targets in relation to housing through regional strategies. For many, most of the things which have gone wrong in our planning over the last fourteen years lie in the Localism Act, and the abolition of regional plans by Eric Pickles without anything other than the trouble-laden “duty to cooperate” to replace them. Time has shown that achieving infrastructure-led place making through our planning system is going to mean spatial planning across broader geographies than individual LPAs. Further, the new Labour government has discussed reviews of green belt areas, it will be important (reflecting the strategic spatial function of green belt policy itself) that this happens at a level beyond individual LPA boundaries.

The Levelling Up Act provides for joint spatial development strategies and joint local plans. The SoS can already to intervene and compel LPAs to work together and to plan jointly – albeit, currently she has no power to intervene to compel the production of joint spatial development strategies. That is, of course, something that could change, albeit change would require legislation. The benefits of joined up planning can be profound. That said, we have to be realistic: rolling it out across the county will need a change in primary legislation, which could take months if not years, and then the plans will take time to be prepared, examined and adopted. Indeed, on average, the time it takes to adopt a local plan is around seven years. So, in the end: strategic planning will no doubt be key to our new government’s ambitions on housing. But we should retain a healthy scepticism on the realism of it playing a significant role in delivering housing completions in Labour’s first term.

Clement Atlee’s Labour Party campaigned on the idea of forging a “New Jerusalem” - re-making the country afresh. That platform brought us the NHS, the welfare state, the planning system (through the Town and Country Planning Act 1947) and the planning system’s close cousin, the new towns programme through the New Towns Act 1946.

The dream of the new towns was all about clean air, open space, good quality housing matched with secure employment - a fresh start for people fleeing the war-ravaged cities to raise their families in a new peace. A new start. A new town.

The Prime Minister set up a commission chaired by Lord Reith. The Commission recommended that the new towns should have populations of up to 60,000, should be built on greenfield sites, should comprise single family homes at low densities, organised around local shops and schools, with a balance of employment.

Who would create all of this? Development corporations - public corporations set up, sponsored and financed by central government through Treasury loans, with punchy planning, compulsory purchase and development powers. Their masterplanning approach was a relative of Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City movement – influenced by Corbusian modernism. Spacious, modern, comfortable living. That was the idea.

Only a couple of years after the first wave of new towns being designated, houses started springing out of the ground in places like Basildon, Bracknell, Crawley, Hatfield, Harlow, Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage. Was it always popular? No. The selection of sites for new towns made lots of people very, very unhappy. A vivid picture on the sort of resistance new towns faced is recorded in Franklin v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1948] A.C. 87. In that case, the Minister - Lewis Silkin - made some punchy statements in favour of the then draft Stevenage New Town Designation Order at a public meeting in advance of his considering objections to the Order after a public inquiry. The transcript included:

"I want to carry out a daring exercise in town planning — ( Jeers ). It is no good your jeering it is going to be done — ( Applause and boos ). (Cries of 'Dictator')." After all this new town is to be built in order to provide for the happiness and welfare of some sixty thousand men, women and children ....,. The project will go forward. It will do so more smoothly and more successfully with your help and co-operation. Stevenage will in a short time become world famous — ( Laughter ). People from all over the world will come to Stevenage to see how we here in this country are building for the new way of life."

Un 1959, the Conservative government added several more new towns - Runcorn and Skelmersdale for Merseyside, and Dawley (later Telford) and Redditch for the West Midlands. Washington Tyne and Wear in the North East. In HHarold Wilson’s Labour Government of the 1960s, who through the New Towns Act 1965 brought about - among other places - Milton Keynes.

However, since around 1980, the new town development corporation model has been on the wane. Overall, in the end, since the 2nd world war, we’ve created 22 new towns which are now home for just under 3 million people

The new town movement can be a radical, creative, infrastructure-led programme for place-making that has transformed the face of the country - new towns provide homes and communities for millions of people.

On the other hand, Sir Frederick Gibberd said in an interview in 1982 (35 years after he created the new town of Harlow):

“People sometimes say to me, ‘You must get a terrific kick out of having been responsible for a huge thing like a new town,’ Well, I get a lot of misery out of it, in fact. I go around and think, ‘My god, that’s unbelievably bad, and it could have been so good.’”

The critiques of our 22 new towns are well known:

• They are sometime criticised as soulless, place-less, sterile, anywhere-ville developments;
• The buildings - in particular the housing – are sometimes derided as “ugly” and not standing the test of time;
• They are too low density too car-centric.

What does this tell us about whether the new Labour government’s plans for new towns:

1. Where? We will need to know from the Government’s taskforce as soon as possible how many new towns are being considered and where they’re going to be. Those issues are, to put it mildly, controversial.
2. Legislation. We are likely to need some form of primary legislation to facilitate this fresh generation of new towns – that will take some time.
3. Land assembly. An obvious point. But, even with strong CPO powers for development corporations, this could take years not months.
4. Infrastructure. It will be critical that any new towns are infrastructure-led for them to work at all. How long before the roads, rails, broadband, hospitals, and everything else are ready?
5. Planning. New towns will need planning permission. That can take a time. How long does a normal scheme of 2000+ homes take to get from application being validated to the first home being completed? Almost 7 years. Of course, for a really large scheme, even getting to an application at all can take years not months.

What, then are the odds of the Government’s ambition of new towns delivering homes within the next Parliament? Basildon was designated as a new town in 1948, and homes were being built 3 years later. But our system has changed a great deal since the 1950s. In the end, completions in brand new towns within this next Parliament is a very long shot. Which obviously does not diminish the importance of what new towns can achieve in the more medium-long term.

The country has a shortfall of well over 4 million homes. All the new towns we have built since 1950 are now home to under 3 million people. Which is to say: new towns can be hugely powerful, but they are not close to being a full solution to our needs for housing and other kinds of development. And, to be fair, the new Government have not suggested they are a full solution selling it as one. E.g. the manifesto also talks about urban extensions, building in the “grey belt” (whatever that turns out to be) etc. etc. etc. To deliver this Government’s longer term objectives, we will need new towns. But we would need urban extensions too. Along with urban densification and regeneration, including regeneration of the new towns which aren’t new. All of which would require strategic planning to be brought forward successfully. Much of which would also require at least one further term of this government before they bear fruit.

The article is written by - Zack Simons, Dr Ashley Bowes, and Isabella Buono.

You can listen to the full webinar recording here.