A deconstructionist model of planning

February 24, 2011

Nigel Keohane, Head or Research, NLGN
The House Magazine

Few local councils will mourn the loss of ‘regional spatial strategies’. For many they became symptomatic of a top-down and target-led approach to policy. Yet the secret is that some rather liked having someone to blame, a big bad beast that they campaigned with their community against. Now they have nowhere to hide, they must engage head-on with their local community about where houses and infrastructure should be built.

The Localism Bill will see powers handed down from the regional tier to local authorities, and from councils to neighbourhoods. The removal of the regional targets gives local authorities a much firmer grip on planning policy and housing numbers in their area. The government intends to stimulate a new type of political debate locally, where opposition to new housing can be set against clearer benefits for the local community.

The New Homes Bonus will provide a strong financial incentive for councils to pursue development – six years’ match-funding of council tax receipts for each new home. Meanwhile, localised developer contributions will offer communities tangible infrastructure benefits.

If the government has understood the market correctly, both could kick-start more mature political discussions about housing supply, and force those who are against development to articulate a clear case
against housing growth.

Elsewhere power has been decentralised from local authorities to communities themselves. Under proposals, parishes and neighbourhoods will be able to come forward with their own plans, and indeed development
proposals if a minimum threshold is reached. The devolutionary premise has merit. But controversy could lurk in the small print – if the plans of a neighbourhood and a council were at odds, whose would be adopted?

These political tensions are likely to be accompanied by more practical challenges as well. Unless designed
very carefully there is a danger that planning reforms may undermine the government’s ambitions to promote private sector-led economic growth. With capital grant reducing significantly in the years ahead, private investment will have to step in to provide the supporting infrastructure.

However, investors, constructors and infrastructure providers often require scale and certainty to develop
a business case. But a more localised, fragmented and disjointed system is unlikely to provide this. In fact,
the business community has noted that it will actually increase the level of risk for investors.

So, in a fragmented planning system where might certainty and scale come from? NLGN has advocated a greater role for Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) – groupings of councils and businesses – to lead
on strategic planning. At this tier of operation, LEPs could offer the requisite scale for major infrastructure
investments in hospitals or roads. This will pose its own set of political challenges locally – effective LEPs will
require compromise, vision and prioritisation across different administrative boundaries, and often between
different political parties.

Perhaps councils will be more careful what they wish for in the future.


Explore More