The Minister for Housing and Planning has just stopped 165 homes being built

Christopher Worrall is a housing columnist for LFF. He is on the Executive Committee of the Labour Housing Group, Co-Host of the Priced Out Podcast, and Chair of the Local Government and Housing Member Policy Group of the Fabian Society. 

Last week Rachel Maclean MP, the NIMBY Minister of State for Housing and Planning, shockingly exercised on behalf of Secretary of State Michael Gove a death knell for 165 homes in Tunbridge Wells. One would have expected the Minister to lead by example. But the decision by the MP for Redditch appears to have been made on a whim, while at the same time contradicting her own party’s aims to enhance local democracy as described in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (‘the Bill’). Instead such actions bring to light the insanity our current Kafkaesque planning system entails, while at the same time calling into question the motivated reasoning plaguing the uncertainty our system creates.

Now it is hard to find much difference of opinion between Labour and Tories when it comes to calls for the “enhancement” of local democracy. Recent debates in the Lord’s on the Bill have heard from Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, who stated “we absolutely must ensure that local plans, with the input of local people and democratically elected representatives, retain their primacy over anything that is drawn up centrally in Whitehall”. On the face of it, all very rational. But off the back of it comes National Development Management Plans (NDMPs) coming under attack. More on that later.

Yes, the former leader of Stevenage council has been outspoken on planning and devolution issues in the past. And she has the battle scars to prove it. When leader of Stevenage council, Baroness Taylor had her council’s local plan blocked for 500 days having had it called in by then Secretary of State Saijid Javid. All off the back of a nod and a wink from local MP Stephen McPartland. The hold up was only overturned after Taylor took legal action against the government over the delay. In the past, Baroness Taylor had also lost the battle over the West Stevenage urban extension. A 12-year war against new housing by a Tory led district council and Tory led county council, which eventually ended with the developer pulling out. One of the many examples of failed regional planning over the duty to cooperate, but also highlighting the nefarious role Tory central governments can play in preventing new homes.

Nevertheless, what ultimately stood out in the more recent decision by Rachel Maclean was that the site in question was allocated in the local plan, recommended for approval by local officers, resolved by local elected members to be approved, and even recommended to have the permission granted by the planning inspectorate. Yet in her divine wisdom the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, of all but 2 months, felt she knew what was best for the people of Tunbridge Wells.

It does beg the question. How does such a bizarre decision come to fruition – and what lobbying has been done behind closed doors to possibly think so many levels of democracy, decision, evaluation and expert review were so wrong? Ultimately, the Secretary of State, or in this case his Minister for Housing and Planning, disagreed with the inspector’s analysis of the quality of design and its “harm” to the landscape and scenic beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (HWAONB). Not an area of expertise I understand Rachel Maclean to have had.

Despite the council being unable to currently show a 5-year housing land supply the current framework of regulation would suggest planning permission should be granted. Yet loop holes concerning the subjectivity of adverse impacts outweighing the benefits were weaponised in this case, ending in the annihilation of the 165 home housing project. Only an appeal to the high court to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – could now give these homes a chance of being built. At least the planning law firms may be kept busy.

When we hear of cases like this we can immediately sympathize with criticisms of the Bill’s introduction of NDMPs. Especially given Baroness Taylor’s tortured past with local plans and Tory Secretaries of State. Experience of such meddling may no doubt give good grounds to raise concerns. So when Baroness Taylor calls to ensure the voice of local residents and businesses is enabled through the planning system, while meeting the test of local democratic accountability, I do genuinely believe it is from a well meaning place. Both recent and past example shows the lunacy concerning decisions by Secretary of States who feel they can play with local authorities local plans like rag dolls, picking them up, throwing them around, and binning them off as they see fit.

The Local Government Association (LGA) has cited concerns the proposals in the Bill will allow NDMPs to take precedence over local plans where local plans are in conflict. The LGA seeks the reverse. They believe that local plans should take precedence. Meanwhile, the dreaded Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) have spent huge sums in legal fees, or “extensive legal advice on these issues” as Baroness Taylor describes, in making a case that condemns the proposals because there is “no assessment of balance”. In the House of Lords debate on 22^nd March, Baroness Taylor argued the CPRE’s case, citing “the national policy will always win out, despite its not having been given any democratic scrutiny” and that the “decision-makers’ scope to make a locally appropriate decision is therefore removed”. 

Baroness Taylor also noted another problem in the current system. That officers feel that they are “in a situation where local plans are permanently in preparation”, going on to suggest requirements for local plans to be updated should be every 5 years. In addition to this, we have also seen local authorities try to adopt local plans that ignore duties to cooperate on unmet housing need of neighbouring authorities. Sevenoaks council took the refusal to adopt their local plan to the high court. The council, which is 93 per cent green belt and 60 per cent AONB, argued that it had spent the best part of 5-years agreeing on a plan the community supported.

This begs the question. Is the high court the best place to decide on policy where local authorities disagree with those that are set nationally. Most would agree that it isn’t. Sevenoaks was a council trying to adopt a plan that provided fewer homes than required to meet the need of its area.

Yes, one may argue about the veracity of the duty to cooperate on “unmet” housing need. And we can quite easily rationalise the logic in each area being responsible for their own targets. But should planning policy give those who do not wish to meet their requirements a free pass to not fulfil their duties? No. But this is where NDMPs would ensure they do.

Furthermore, crazy outcomes such as the Tunbridge Wells decision have been made on the very same contradictory principles the CPRE advocate. Ultimately the subjective “assessment of balance” creates perverse incentives for political leaders to do what is most convenient, often meaning as little as possible.

Personally, I believe the introduction of NDMPs to prevent local authorities from creating policies that allow them to delay and prevent the construction of new homes to be a very good thing. Planning “balance” is not a rule. Nor does it follow any set of certain predictable outcomes. It mostly comes down to who can shout loudest locally. Often excluding many people who would benefit from new homes from the process by design. Politicians beholden to the loud majority then march up the proverbial hill for years, spending huge sums of public money, all to avoid planning for what is needed locally. All because it is popular with a certain demographic within the electorate.

Another contradiction in the CPRE’s argument is that they suggest proposals for NDMPs in the Bill are undemocratic. To argue national government policy is undemocratic is arguing in bad faith. We elect politicians on the back of principles and plans to make policy that achieve our societal goals. To suggest NDMPs are undemocratic is a fallacy. So what motivates the CPRE to call for more ambiguity in the system? Perhaps it allows decisions to be pushed down to a level their members can capture locally motivated by the principle of not building homes. Or perhaps not.

The CPRE in its current form is incredibly problematic as their positions are steeped in motivated reasoning. Yet still many politicians of all stripes parrot their lines. What we don’t see is the CPRE calling for a return to the 1,400 planning authorities that preceded the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, where ownership alone conferred the right to develop the land. No doubt for them that would be too much devolution, despite this being where arguments to enhance local democracy would logically land.

Yes, we have come a long way since the introduction of TCPA 1947, which began with 145 planning authorities. Mostly made up of county and borough councils. To date we have about 456 authorities at varying levels. Comprising of borough, district, unitary, non-metropolitan county, metropolitan county, and other statutory authorities. The Kafkaesque nature of our planning system is centered around get outs and channels for Tory-shire local authorities ability to absolve themselves of meeting our country’s housing needs. One thing is for sure. Legal firms and planners earn good money from navigating clients way past the tentacles of regulatory red tape. Whether they be developers, councils, or flush NIMBY groups.

Ultimately there are layers in the planning process that can be taken out to make it more streamlined. Plan making is what this Bill seems to want to achieve with the introduction of NDMPs. At present the requirement is to prepare a plan within 30 months (2.5 years). But the likes of Baroness Taylor and others have called for 5 years, citing concerns over the ability to deliver in such time frames.

Yet if we look back to 1947, and the government under Clement Attlee, new planning authorities were given just 3 years to put in place a plan. But back then there wasn’t a myriad of statutory bodies and consultees that inevitably slow these processes down. Now in 2023, as Labour sends out its Shadow Ministers to consult on planning reform, if tinkering is their only option they should not fall foul and oppose National Development Management Plans. In the end these powers may come in useful.

Image credit: David Anstiss – Creative Commons

Comments are closed.