Title

Radical Conservative plans to change the planning system could upset the delicate balance between the need for economic growth and the desire to protect the local environment, says Nick Raynsford. Planning is not just one of the most controversial of all local authority services. It is also one of the most complex. "It would be very surprising indeed if such a radical and wide-ranging package of changes could be introduced without either generating a series of hideous and unforeseen consequences, or else bringing the entire system to the verge of collapse. " We all have a tendency to grumble about the weaknesses in the planning system – it takes too long. Its processes, at times, appear labyrinthine. It fails to deliver objectives that we think of as self-evidently desirable and, most of all, from time to time, it allows developments that we hate. But, of course, this is quite simply a reflection of the immensely-difficult task which planning is expected to perform. It has to reflect a community's aspirations for development, and also protect and enhance the existing urban fabric and character of the area. It has to balance legitimate economic expectations of opportunities for growth, with equally legitimate opposition to the adverse consequences – more traffic, more noise, more pressure on local services and infrastructure. It has to make provision for the need for more housing while, at the same time, absorbing the contrary pressure from communities which do not want new homes in their backyard. With so many conflicting expectations placed on the system, it is hardly surprising that the planning process, at times, struggles to cope. Yet it fulfils an absolutely-vital function in mediating between the myriad differing pressures and aspirations that are the hallmark of a free and energetic society. So, during the early years in the lifetime of the present Government, when I held ministerial responsibility for planning, I was always cautious about proposals for wholesale changes in the planning system. Yes, it was right to explore ways to try to help local authorities and the planning inspectorate discharge their responsibilities more expeditiously. But, at the same time, I was wary of the calls for a top-to-bottom shake-up of the planning system which came from both ends of the political spectrum. However well-intentioned the advocates of such root-and-branch reform were, the likely consequence of their proposals, in my judgment, would be to destabilise a finely-balanced system and, in the process, cause far worse consequences than the problems they were trying to address. These thoughts were brought into sharp focus when I read the recent Conservative Party's planning Green Paper. One cannot fault the Tories eagerness to promote change – virtually no part of the planning system is to remain unscathed, if we are to believe their rhetoric. The regional planning tier is to be abolished. A presumption in favour of sustainable development is to be introduced. Distinction between use classes are to be relaxed. The scope for appeals against planning decisions are to be both restricted and widened, and appeals are to be split between two distinct bodies. The Infrastructure Planning Commission is to be abolished, almost before it has begun its work. And so on. Even if one does not think that all these proposals are misguided, one has to question the wisdom of proposing to implement such a massive number of changes at the same time to such a delicately-calibrated mechanism as the planning system. Throwing all the balls in the air simultaneously rarely ensures that they fall neatly into the expected, let alone the correct, pattern when they hit the ground. It would be very surprising indeed if such a radical and wide-ranging package of changes could be introduced without either generating a series of hideous and unforeseen consequences, or else bringing the entire system to the verge of collapse. How local authorities, which have struggled in recent years to get their local development frameworks in place, are to be expected to implement such a transformation without massive additional resources – which are conspicuously not on offer – beggars belief. What is even more astonishing is the way this package of different and, in some cases, conflicting proposals has been presented without any supporting evidence to demonstrate that it is likely to work. No trials have been conducted, nor are any pilots proposed to test the feasibility of the measures. Instead, we are asked to take the package on trust, with no supporting empirical evidence, whatsoever. Such confidence can only come from profound inexperience. It would be hard to accept the proposals in the Tory Green Paper if they were the product of the wisdom and experience of King Solomon. Instead, all we are given is the assurance of Bob Neill MP that it will be alright on the night. Forgive me if I am wholly unconvinced. Planning deserves better. Nick Raynsford is a former local government and planning minister

Title

WHITEHALL

Don't upset the balance

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING