No more planning reforms, please!

Posted on 23 August, 2016 by Fiona

On 14 July 2016, the Prime Minister Theresa May announced her new Cabinet, following a significant reshuffle and re-structure of Government. In this context, researchers from all over Newcastle University express their thoughts on the challenges and opportunities for the Government in the Ideas for May’s Ministers blog series, considering how individuals, communities and societies can thrive in times of rapid, transformational change.

To: Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
From: Professor Simin Davoudi, Professor of Environmental Policy & Planning, Newcastle School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape

On 12 May 2016, two months before Sajid Javid became the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Housing and Planning Act was given Royal Assent. Starter Homes were a key priority for the Housing and Planning Act but faced some of the strongest opposition on the ground that it adversely affects the availability of affordable housing. The Act also introduced changes to speed up and streamline the planning system so that permissions for development are granted faster and more often. Concerns over planning delays have been a force for legislative change since 1947. However, these acts often create more confusion and delay in the system they were hoping to reform.

The 2004 reform, for example, created a complex system with a host of new acronyms and terms that were incomprehensible even to professional planners, let alone members of the public they were trying to engage. Attempts by the government of the time to clarify things led to the publication of thousands of pages of good practice guidance. But, these only added to the confusion. The statements in the guidance were often complex and convoluted, such as this one:

‘The local development framework will be comprised of local development documents which include development plan documents, that are part of the statutory development plan and supplementary planning documents which expand policies set out in a development plan document or provide additional details’ [i]

In the last 12 years, the dizzying pace of reforms has itself become a key factor in slowing the system down because, before one set of reforms is fully operational, another one comes along and planners have to start all over again and all in the name of speeding up and streamlining the planning system.

So, my plea to Sajid Javid is twofold: first, please do not embark on new planning reforms and instead, allow the current one to bed down. Second, do not let the obsession with speeding up the decision-making get in the way of sound and well thought-out decisions. While nobody wishes to advocate inefficiencies and unjustifiable delays, the quest for speed needs to be kept in perspective. As a chief planner once put it, ‘it is easy to take a bad decision quickly and to repent at leisure; but it is doubtful whether people would regard this as good planning’[ii]. The developments of today will not be judged in the years to come by whether or not their planning applications were determined in eight weeks instead of ten. They will be judged on the soundness of the decision that allowed them to go ahead and on the quality of the outcome.

Have you ever seen a plaque put on a building to commemorate that the decision to build it was taken in eight weeks? Me neither.

It is wrong to think about speed in isolation from the purpose of planning which is about making better places. This implies that the performance of planning should be judged not just by how fast decisions are made and plans are produced, but also on the impacts of these decisions on places, and on people’s quality of life. The 2016 reform, like most of its predecessors, focuses too much on procedures and too little on outcomes. And, when outcomes are talked about, the focus is almost entirely on economic growth measured by the GDP, with little attention being paid to the role of planning in creating fairer and more sustainable places.

What people consider as good planning is its outcome delivered through a fair and efficient process. They want to see good development happening in the right places at the right scale and with high environmental and design standards. They want the process to inform them adequately, engage them properly, listen to their views carefully, and seek an outcome that responds constructively to what is said. All these require time, resources, expertise, skills and crucially a supporting environment which is appreciative of what planners try to achieve rather than demoralising them.

While nobody claims that our planning system has been an unqualified success, it is hard to imagine what would have happened without it. So, it is time to stop talking about planning as a burden and start utilising and mobilising planning as a positive force, and as a powerful means for meeting societal goals including the much needed affordable homes

Prof Simin Davoudi, Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape

To engage in the conversation, please tweet us @Social_Renewal #IdeasforMaysMinisters

[i] Creating Local Development Frameworks: A Companion Guide to PPS12 (2004) para. 1.4, London: ODPM

[ii] Late Dr Ted Kitchen, former chief planner at Manchester City Council and professor at Sheffield Hallam University

Finding ways of sustaining small town regeneration

Posted on 8 April, 2015 by Fiona

Dr Neil Powe is a senior lecturer in Newcastle University School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, and he writes the latest Idea for an Incoming Government about the regeneration of small towns, arguing for a new approach.

What is the problem?

Small towns are rural settlements whose fortunes have reflected many structural changes in the economy. Whilst some small towns have become vibrant centres, successful business locations and/or desirable residential and tourist locations, others, despite their potential, have struggled to adapt to the challenges faced.

Whilst assistance has previously been provided to help these rural settlements regenerate, it is arguable that there has been a failure to match the process to the challenge. As suggested by Powe et al., (2015, p179) “government-initiated programmes tend to reflect the political realities of transitory and generic support for rapid delivery, whereas the practical realities of regeneration require a sustained, collaborative, spatially-sensitive process of change.”

In the current climate of austerity, external agencies are less likely to get involved in encouraging change. With local authorities increasingly focused on their statutory roles rather than regeneration activities, they are also unlikely to provide much support for community capacity development or accessing external funding. Whilst there are good reasons to be concerned about the lack of regeneration funding, it is important to also reflect on the efficacy of the government-initiated programme model of regeneration and consider if there are alternative approaches which are more appropriate and applicable to the long term process of regeneration.

The solution

There is a need to be more realistic about what can be achieved through government support and new regeneration models are required. ‘Big fix’ external prescriptions will generally not work. Instead, successful processes are developed through repeated ‘small wins’ over long periods. Whilst lessons have been drawn from regeneration schemes in the US before, there has been a failure to focus on the charitable nature of their initiatives. Indeed, charitable organisations can be less transitory than government agencies, both in terms of their nature and their underlying principles.

In the UK context there is a growing realisation that innovative approaches are required to small town regeneration, with community enterprises providing one of perhaps many alternative approaches which better match the process to the challenge. Whereas social enterprises are responsible for running a specific business or service, charitable community enterprises are more focused on a particular place and can play a crucial role within regeneration. As long as the enterprises run by the organisation remain viable they can provide locally based expertise to help manage the regeneration process.

The evidence

These findings are based on two research projects.

The first research project (Powe et al., 2015) was a review of past experience of small town and other forms of regeneration which confirmed the tendency for government-initiated approaches to fail to match the regeneration process to the challenge. This project also extended understanding by considering the favourable case of an unusually long running government-initiated scheme. The role of the Regional Development Agency was found to be essential in providing initial momentum, facilitating engagement, bringing new ideas to the regeneration process and removing blockages which would have been difficult to deal with locally. Yet, consistent with other previous initiatives, frictions emerged as the agency strived to be over-directive. There was little local ownership in the partnership formed, or awareness of local history or culture in its scale of operation. The partnership also did not have any assets upon which to sustain its efforts (although efforts were made to achieve this). When external funding was withdrawn the local partnership folded.

The second research project is still ongoing but builds on the work of Healey (2015) (also at Newcastle University) which demonstrates the merits of a specific community enterprise in Wooler, Northumberland. More recently, this work has been extended by Neil Powe to other community enterprises engaged in small town regeneration. Whilst some enterprises do fail, lessons are being learnt and exemplars are emerging which demonstrate that this approach has potential to better match the process to the challenge. For example, for approximately twenty years there has been sustained effort and local expertise within Wooler and another Northumberland town, Amble, which has led to significant but incremental regeneration. Within these charitable trusts short term political objectives are put to one side and there is instead a focus on the mutual interests of regeneration. Clearly the relevance of the community enterprise model will depend on the specifics of the individual town but the research demonstrates the potential at least to develop new innovative models which are more appropriate to the regeneration challenges faced.

Healy, P. (2015) Civil society enterprise and local development, Planning Theory and Practice, 16(1), 11-27.

Powe, N.A., Pringle, R. and Hart, T. (2015) Matching the process to the challenge within small town regeneration, Town Planning Review, 86(2), 177-202.

A Charter for Rural Enterprise

Posted on 6 March, 2015 by Fiona

Jeremy Phillipson (School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development) considers rural enterprise, in the latest of our Ideas for an Incoming Government. His vision is a Charter for Rural Enterprise, protecting rural economies and allowing them to flourish.

What is the problem?

We should be doing more with our rural enterprises. Rural areas contribute at least £211 billion a year directly to the nation’s economy but have great potential to achieve even more. Cuts in public spending and the need to rebalance the economy means that our expectations of what enterprise can achieve in employment, wealth creation and service provision have increased. We must, therefore, expect to see growth across the whole country rather than only in certain cities or sectors. The distinctive characteristics, business and employment structure and past performance of rural economies mean that they are well placed to meet this challenge. Through a new Charter for Rural Enterprise, we propose that an effective and transparent rural proofing of growth plans and policies be pushed forward across all business sectors and localities in order to tailor measures to rural conditions and assess their applicability to rural economies.

The solution

Rural areas have a number of dynamic features that enable economic growth:

They have more businesses per head of population than many urban areas.
Firms started by people moving into rural areas are more likely to sell their products and services on national and overseas markets, thus earning revenue beyond the locality.
Many manufacturing businesses are located in rural areas and this sector provides a higher proportion of rural jobs and output than are supported by urban manufacturing firms.
Rural economies have pioneered privatisation and community provision of many local services, fuelled by a combination of delivery and access difficulties and the distinctive nature of rural demand.
As the economic value and potential of ecosystems services are recognised these will offer increased opportunities for growth.
Rural economies have demonstrated their potential to provide more growth and employment if given appropriate stimuli and support from national and local business leaders and policy makers.

However rural growth measures have been more fully developed for the land-dependent sectors of farming, forestry, food and environmental services. Whilst these are important for the nation, in many rural areas we need to look to other sectors that are the primary engines for growth, for example in manufacturing, professional, scientific and technical sectors, and wholesale and retail. Through establishing a Charter for Rural Enterprise, rural economies would be treated as cross-cutting and more effectively embedded in mainstream policies and plans for economic development. This should include a commitment to:

Strategies for growth that respond to local variability of the spatial, sectoral and business size profiles of rural economies, and which drive resources to the local level through an approach that meets local constraints and opportunities of rural places. This would identify and respond to the diversity of growth challenges in rural industries. We also propose a review of the needs and opportunities for rural and home-based micro enterprises that have so far fallen beneath the radar of economic and enterprise policy.
Spatially-balanced and inclusive economic growth; to this end Impact Assessments should be prepared and published at national and sub-national level for economic plans and policies for areas larger than (lower tier) local authorities (for example City Deals, LEPs’ Strategic Economic Plans and European Structural and Investment Fund Strategies), to demonstrate their impacts on, and inclusiveness of rural areas. Assessments would identify spatial or functional gaps in, and weaknesses of, policies and programmes, inform future resource allocations and encourage a sense of inclusiveness.
Demonstrating ways that rural firms can realise the value of the natural environment to their growth, by securing efficiencies and developing new products and services. We also propose a national review of the challenges and adaptation needs facing rural enterprises in responding to the pressures of environmental change.
Strengthening rural business and community institutions which form the bedrock of our rural firms and bolster their innovative capability and resilience; to this end we should build on the experience of the Rural Growth Networks to extend nationally the network of rural work hubs offering flexible work premises and access to shared facilities. We suggest support for the establishment of rural business clubs and associations that provide rural business mentoring and strengthen the voice of rural business through establishing a National Rural Business Task Force to ensure that core business, financial and innovation policies are sensitive to rural needs.
Investment in affordable housing, public transport and local services which are essential for employee recruitment and new business development. In addition to providing meaningful support for building new housing or providing public transport in rural areas, financial help should be provided to small employers with hard-to-fill vacancies due to their area’s lack of affordable housing and poor public transport. These barriers to employment and growth of small firms are particularly evident in remote rural locations, and local economies with poor connectivity and limited pools of skilled labour, exacerbated by low stock of low cost housing. The Government should explore how tax reliefs or direct payments can be extended to measures taken by employers to help new employees’ access accommodation or transport to the workplace.

Overall, we need a new commitment to rural enterprise. This would entail more transparent proofing of national and local growth plans across all business sectors and localities. We need better engagement between stakeholders, to strengthen our understanding of rural business potential and to use this to inform strategic commitment to rural economies. Academia needs to play its part in filling the gap in independent rural analysis. This will allow us more firmly to take the pulse of rural economies as they respond to shocks, whether it be flooding, economic downturn or disease outbreak, and to more effectively assist their recovery to full health.

The evidence

Commission for Rural Communities (2011) Small towns in rural England.
Defra (2013) Statistical Digest of Rural England 2014
Defra (2010) Economic Growth and the Environment
Atterton, J. and Affleck, A. (2010) Rural Businesses in the North East of England: Final Survey Results. Centre for Rural Economy Research Report.
Phillipson J et al. (2011) Rural Economies: Incubators and Catalysts for Sustainable Growth. Submission to Government’s Growth Review – Stage 2, Centre for Rural Economy and Relu.
Phillipson J and Turner R (2013) Rural Areas as Engines of Economic Growth. Rural Economy and Land Use Programme Policy and Practice Note no 41.
OECD Rural Policy Reviews: England, United Kingdom 2011

Tweet @Social_Renewal using #Ideas4anIncomingGovt to join in the conversation.

Affordable housing: a fair deal for rural communities

Posted on 3 March, 2015 by Fiona

Professor Mark Shucksmith OBE, Director of the Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal, considers the problem of providing affordable housing in rural areas, and presents the findings of the Rural Housing Policy Review group.

It’s now 34 years since my first book, “No Homes For Locals?” was published. This worries me partly because this suggests I’m not as young as I used to be; but mainly it worries me because we have made so little progress in addressing the challenges of enabling people to live and work in the countryside which prompted me to write that book. There are severe housing difficulties throughout the UK, but rural areas face special difficulties. In the UK, uniquely, rural house prices are higher than in urban areas – in fact, 26% higher on average. The ratio of house prices to local earnings is even worse. And there is far less social housing (council housing and housing association housing) than in urban areas, not least due to Right to Buy sales going through the roof in recent decades.

For the last year I’ve worked with other experts as part of the Rural Housing Policy Review group, chaired by Lord Best, to propose solutions to this challenge which acknowledge the current constraints on public spending. Last week we presented these at a launch in the House of Lords. Here is a summary of our proposals, the latest of our ‘Ideas for an Incoming Government’:

Because more sites are needed:

Since the vast majority of rural schemes are on small sites, Government’s policy is to remove from local authorities the power to require affordable homes on sites of less than 10 homes. This must be reversed. Local Planning Authorities should require all sites, whatever their size, to make an affordable housing contribution. The level of this contribution – in cash or kind – will be determined by what works in the housing market of that area.
Government should provide incentives to encourage land owners to develop rural affordable housing to meet local needs or to release sites for these homes, e.g. through tax incentives or nomination rights, which would also stimulate the local economy.
Since local communities cannot properly influence what kind of development takes place without a Local Plan, Government should require all local authorities to complete their Local Plan preparation within two years

Because new homes must be affordable to local people:

Government should exclude rural areas from the “spare room subsidy withdrawal” (commonly known as the ‘bedroom tax’) because there are so few opportunities for rural tenants in houses to move to 1 or 2 bedroom flats in villages; these households should not be forced to move away from their long-standing social and support networks to urban areas elsewhere.
Where there are already problems from the low levels of affordable housing and limited opportunities to build any more, Government should give rural local authorities the power to suspend the Right to Buy scheme.
To provide a driver for action and delivery by housing associations of all sizes, a new national target for delivery of rural housing through the Homes and Communities Agency should be established of 13% of the HCA’s national investment.
To address problems of accessing development finance, Government should find ways of supporting the development funding of small and medium-sized builders and housing associations that undertake smaller developments: e.g. recalibrating its loan guarantee scheme to cover schemes of less than 25 homes.

Because affordable homes need to be there for future households:

To ensure rents are affordable in low wage, high house price rural communities, Government should not require housing associations to charge so-called ‘affordable rents’ at 80% of market rental rate as a condition for receiving HCA funding. Instead, as in Greater London, rents should be charged at a level agreed between the local authority and the housing provider as being affordable in relation to local incomes.
Where an area is experiencing high levels of second home ownership, Government should endorse the approach taken by the Exmoor National Park Authority, and in other places, by requiring a proportion of open market homes – up to a 100% in exceptional cases – to be granted planning permission with the condition that they can only be used as principal residences.
Although those buying affordable homes on special terms need to be able easily to access a mortgage it is essential that they do not simply resell for a profit at a later date. The Council of Mortgage Lenders should, at long last, produce a standardised mortgage form for rural affordable home ownership which incorporates a ‘perpetuity’ arrangement.

Because leadership is needed from national to community level:

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as the champion for rural areas, should ensure ‘rural proofing’ is continuously and consistently applied to national policies, with specialist, rural technical expertise available to all Government departments.
Because Neighbourhood Plans are a vital means for rural communities to deliver affordable homes, yet require resources and expertise, Government should increase and extend its support (beyond April 2015) for more communities to produce Neighbourhood Plans. And the Homes and Communities Agency should offer match funding to housing associations for the employment of Rural Housing Enablers who can play the key role in bringing together parish councils, land owners, local authorities and housing associations to achieve affordable rural homes.

There is more detail in our full report which you can download free here. The shortage of affordable rural housing is an issue not just for young people and others earning middle to low incomes; it has a wider significance as our countryside becomes ever more socially exclusive, a place where only rich people will be able to afford to live and in which most members of society can never be resident. This growing separation between rich and poor threatens our social solidarity and is far from ideas of ‘one nation’, espoused by successive governments.

Members of the Rural Housing Policy Review

Lord Richard Best OBE DL (Chair of the Rural Housing Policy Review)

Lord Matthew Taylor

Lord Ewen Cameron DL FRICS

Elinor Goodman

David Fursdon DL FRICS

Margaret Clark CBE

Sue Chalkley

Professor Mark Shucksmith OBE

Peter Moore

Peter Hetherington

Cllr Anne Hall

Jo Lavis (Secretary and member)

Tweet @Social_Renewal using #Ideas4anIncomingGovt to join in the conversation.

Newcastle University Institute for Social Renewal

We are the Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal, Newcastle University

Tag Archives: Housing

No more planning reforms, please!