Nick Diment, director, Boyer (an LRG company)
The government’s growth agenda is welcome but its commitment to speeding up plan-making while making significant changes to local government structures raises an important and complex question: can these two objectives be reconciled effectively? To address this question, it is essential to explore the implications of both speeding up planning processes and restructuring local government systems, and perhaps more importantly, examine whether the two equally valid aspirations can work in tandem or risk undermining each other.
The need for speed in plan-making
For better or worse, we have a plan led system. Plan-making, particularly in the context of preparing and maintaining up-to-date local plans has long been a slow and cumbersome process. Currently fewer than 40% of local planning authorities (LPAs) have up-to-date plans. This uncertainty, as we’ve seen in recent years, delays decision-making, exacerbates housing shortages, under estimates the supply of employment land and in turn, impedes economic growth.
The government has been proactive, delivering a raft of initiatives with the sole intention of streamline processes. This has included a variety of consultations (some formal, some less so), a revised NPPF, a new Planning and Infrastructure Bill and changes to the NPPG. More change is still to come.
Probably the most significant of the changes, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will take some time to progress through both Houses of Parliament. In the meantime, we still await guidance on viability and National Development Management Policies. As with anything new it takes time to bed in and even longer before we can look back and decide whether it’s been successful or simply more tinkering around the edges.
We would all acknowledge that it currently takes far too long to prepare local plans, but speeding up plan-making does not come without risks. A rushed planning process can lead to suboptimal decision-making if crucial aspects of consultation, evidence gathering, market intel and sustainability considerations are overlooked in the interest of speed. Moreover, rushing through the engagement on local plans could exacerbate local opposition, especially from communities that feel sidelined or inadequately consulted. This can have long term consequences and a lack of faith in the planning system.
Changes to local government structures
Alongside the push for faster plan-making (and decision taking) are the ongoing reforms aimed at changing local government structures. These changes are expected to include merging local authorities and changing responsibilities for strategic planning between different levels of government. Like many in the planning and development profession and particularly with my industrial and logistics hat on, I welcome a return to regional planning. However, restructuring local government is likely to be a complex and disruptive process, which, like the proposed changes to the planning system, can take considerable time and effort to implement – introducing a period of uncertainty in which local councils and administrative bodies are focused more on reorganisation than on delivering tangible outcomes. And we all know how the property industry despises uncertainty.
Can plan-making be expedited amidst structural changes?
Considering the government’s stated direction of travel, let’s hope so. It is, however, a big ask to expect the planning system to be able to respond amidst this change. But let’s be optimistic: there are several ways in which the two objectives could be harmonised. Restructuring local government could lead to more streamlined and efficient decision-making processes, which could, in theory, speed up the creation and approval of plans. If local authorities are consolidated or their responsibilities reorganised in a more logical and coherent manner, this could reduce the complexity and overlap that often delays the planning process. With clearer responsibilities, decision-making could become faster and more decisive, potentially leading to quicker plan approval.
Furthermore, if structural changes embrace Prop Tech, deliver improvements in data gathering and management, or introduce better coordination across governmental departments, this too could support a more efficient, transparent planning system. Modernising local government structures to incorporate new technologies and workflows would certainly make it easier to track progress, consult stakeholders, and make necessary adjustments to plans in real-time, thus accelerating the overall process, ensuring policies respond to change.
On the other hand, if ill considered, the changes to local government structures could create significant challenges for expediting plan-making. Local government restructuring often leads to a period of confusion and transition, where existing processes and systems are disrupted. Staff may be reassigned, new decision-making hierarchies established, and there may be delays in the transfer of responsibilities or changes to the allocation of resources. During this time of flux, planning activities could be slowed down rather than sped up. Additionally, local councils or new administrative bodies may need time to adapt to new roles and responsibilities, and they might not be in a position to prioritize plan-making in the short term.
Moreover, the uncertainty surrounding such substantial changes to local government could result in a lack of clarity about who has the authority to make key planning decisions. This could further delay the plan-making process and introduce ambiguity, reducing the ability of local authorities to act decisively in responding to community needs.
Balancing speed with thoroughness
A key concern in speeding up plan-making while undergoing a period of change is the balance between speed and thoroughness; also that there will be a consistency of approach whilst changes bed down. Planning processes require careful consideration of various factors, such as public consultation, information gathering and up to date evidence, and the integration of long-term infrastructure and sustainability goals. If the government’s focus on speeding up plan-making leads to a dilution of these important processes, we could see a rush of poorly planned developments that fail to meet the needs of local communities or have unintended consequences for the environment.
So it’s important that government ensures that the pace of plan-making does not compromise quality. One way to address this certainly to encourage the integration of technology and data-driven decision-making into the planning process. Using digital tools for community engagement, environmental analysis, and data visualization could help speed up processes while maintaining a high level of scrutiny and consultation.
Conclusion
Ultimately, expediting plan-making while implementing quite considerable changes to local government structures presents both opportunities and challenges. While restructuring local government could lead to efficiencies that support faster planning, the disruption caused by such changes could also slow down the process, if left unchecked. The key to success lies in managing these changes carefully and ensuring a consistent approach.
Over the coming weeks and months it will be crucial to ensure that structural reforms do not create unnecessary disruptions but rather maintain a focus on quality and thoroughness in the planning process. If done thoughtfully, it is possible to achieve both faster plan-making and more effective local governance. However, this will require careful coordination, a clear vision for both reforms, and a commitment to maintaining the long-term integrity of the planning system.
