C O N T E X T 1 7 2 : J U N E 2 0 2 2 27 REGULATIONS AND CODES DAVE CHETWYN Planning reform in England Trying to reform permitted development rights, use classes, green belts, housing supply, heritage designations and other elements of the planning system is a risky business. One of the constants for the planning system in England over the past few decades has been reform. Some reforms have been about tweaking the system. However, on occasions reform has been more radical, such as the creation of development corporations in the 1980s and the introduction of neighbourhood planning in 2011. Such reforms have been controversial, at least for some people, but have led to longer-term shifts in the culture of planning and regeneration. Planning reform is a risky business and can make headline news, as demonstrated by the recent planning white paper. This was identified as one of the factors in the government’s defeat in the Chesham and Amersham by-election. A decade or so previously, the first draft of the National Planning Policy Framework was opposed in the media by the National Trust and others. As a consequence, the NPPF was published in a significantly modified form, with more emphasis on sustainability. Planning white paper The planning white paper Planning for the Future was one of the later initiatives associated with Dominic Cummings – no stranger to controversy. The white paper (which read more like a green paper) attracted a bad reaction, not just from opposition parties, but from the government’s own benches and from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee (now the Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities Committee). The planning white paper addressed heritage very much as a peripheral issue, perhaps due to it falling largely within the remit of a different ministry. Nonetheless, the proposed broadbrush zoning system (growth, renew, protect) sat uncomfortably with heritage protection, not least in historic town and city centres. This was highlighted in consultation responses, evidence and briefings prepared by the IHBC. Following Michael Gove’s appointment as Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities, there have been increasingly clear indications that the more controversial elements of the white paper have been dropped. Indeed, there is now to be no separate planning bill. Any changes will be achieved through levelling-up legislation or changes to policy. The government has made clear that communities will continue to have the opportunity to comment on planning proposals, which has been interpreted as meaning that the proposal for local plans to grant planning permission for ‘growth’ sites will not be taken forward. The planning white paper largely ignored neighbourhood planning, despite this being one of the few reforms to have helped to achieve more growth. Neighbourhood planning was mentioned mainly in the context of design, despite many neighbourhood plans having a strong focus on social and economic planning. This assumption is perhaps behind the government’s pilot programme to allow communities to prepare street plans, which is also the subject of the Planning (Street Plans) Bill. Experience with neighbourhood planning suggests that this narrow scope will be unlikely to deliver the community’s aspirations. Indeed, some consider it to be a watering down of neighbourhood planning. The surviving elements from the white paper are understood to be the digitisation of the planning system and the reformed infrastructure levy. With the latter, questions remain on how a more standardised approach would work in areas where there are viability challenges. Many remain concerned that getting rid of section 106, which has been touted by ministers as a key benefit of the new levy, would make it harder to deliver affordable housing or other infrastructure gains. Use classes and permitted development rights No less controversial is the introduction of Use Class E and expanded permitted development rights, including for upwards extensions and changes of use from commercial to residential uses. Commercial to residential rights have been controversial since first introduced, with some well-publicised examples of sub-standard accommodation. More recent amendments have sought to address this with more rigorous space and daylight standards. However, rights have also been expanded to ground-floor frontage units, which has undermined high street policies in hundreds of local plans and neighbourhood plans. There is clearly potential for harm to the character and vitality of high streets, although it should be noted that listed buildings and scheduled monuments are excluded from the rights. Prior approval is required in conservation areas; this allows specified issues to be considered, including consideration of ‘character and sustainability’ where ground floors are being converted.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=