C O N T E X T 1 7 2 : J U N E 2 0 2 2 29 REGULATIONS AND CODES Use Class E has had a similar undermining effect. It could actually compromise the regeneration of brownfield sites outside of town centres, where office and enterprise space may be desirable, but not other town-centre uses. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee undertook an inquiry into permitted development rights in 2021. Its chair has recently said: ‘Housing has a role to play in mixed-use high streets, but extending permitted development rights from Use Class E to residential is not the right way to do it.’ A current private member’s bill would give local authorities power to apply local design standards for permitted development, and to refuse permitted development proposals that would be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of an individual or community. Housing, green belts and environmental impact Perhaps one of the most controversial elements of current planning policy is the requirement for a five-year housing land supply. A failure to achieve a five-year land supply has formed the basis for numerous speculative planning applications, and has been a means to effectively bypass policies for the protection of the natural and historic environments. In some areas there is simply insufficient capacity to accommodate the five-year land supply without causing serious environmental harm, for example in Torbay. Research by Planning magazine suggests that 37 per cent of local authorities lack a five-year land supply. A related issue is the release of green belt land for housing. Achieving the five-year land supply has been the basis for green belt release in some areas. Recent reassurance from the prime minister over protection of green belts sits uncomfortably with the policy on five-year land supply. Ministers have recently suggested that the five-year land supply may become advisory only. From a heritage perspective, it is important to avoid any presumption that new housing is a threat. For example, new housing around historic towns can be key to enhancing the vitality and viability of the high street. But the five-year land supply has been a blunt tool, often causing considerable harm. First Homes is a further recent reform to planning policy and guidance. A ‘First Home’ is a specific kind of discounted market sale housing, which the government says should be considered to meet the definition of ‘affordable housing’ for planning purposes. However, these appear to be based on the assumptions of high-growth land economies rather than the needs of areas with weaker land and property economies, where the main barrier to housing is not affordability, but viability and lack of local economic opportunity. Other reforms proposed include simplification of environmental legislation, including habitat regulation assessment, strategic environmental assessment and sustainability assessment. There is little clarity at present on how this will be achieved, while fulfilling international obligations. At the same time, advice on nutrient neutrality (designing development alongside mitigation measures to reduce levels of nutrient pollution) issued by Natural England has effectively halted house building in many local authority areas. Heritage reform As stated above, the planning white paper dealt with heritage in peripheral terms. The last attempt at more substantial reform in England was a heritage bill in 2008, which was abandoned as a consequence of the banking crisis. That bill sought to merge protection of scheduled monuments with that of listed buildings. This was despite most scheduled monuments being incapable of productive economic use, while listed buildings were tested against economic viability. This apparent paradox was questioned at the time and no solution was forthcoming. The banking crisis may have provided a lucky escape. Much of the language from the bill found its way into planning policy, which has created a disconnect and confusion between current legislation and policy. For example, planning policy considers setting to be part of significance (which makes little sense), while the 1990 act refers to special architectural or historic interest and setting (which makes much more sense). More than a decade later, these inconsistencies remain. This could be addressed by revising national planning policy on heritage and some of the guidance prepared by Historic England. Revising guidance would provide an opportunity to address recent changes and challenges, such as the levelling-up agenda, economic and land-use consequences of the pandemic, and climate change. Conclusions The shift of heritage to a separate ministry in 1990 was not necessarily a positive move. Heritage has been viewed in narrower cultural terms, and has not always been well integrated into the wider environmental, social and economic agendas.Too often heritage has been an afterthought, as in the Planning White Paper. This makes heritage vulnerable to poorly conceived reform. Heritage is still often perceived as a barrier to growth, rather than as one of the means to achieving sustainable growth. The Conservation, People and Places All Party Parliamentary Group’s inquiry into the values of heritage, now at the reporting stage, will perhaps help to challenge such misconceptions. Thanks to David Blackman for his input. Dave Chetwyn is managing director of Urban Vision Enterprise CIC, chair of the board of the National Planning Forum, and IHBC communications and outreach secretary. (Opposite) Every government committed to planning reform has to come to terms with popular resistance to development in the countryside. Here Myles Birket Foster (1825–1899), friend of William Morris, reinforces the rural ideal.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=