Professor Yvonne Rydin of UCL’s Bartlett School of Planning presents five ideas that could result in a planning system that delivers a strategy that works for the UK…
The run-up to the recent General Election prompted a group of academics at UCL’s Bartlett School of Planning to address the parlous state of the current planning system and suggest some radical ideas for change. Nothing in the result of that election has made these ideas less relevant; quite the opposite. The current system is weak because: it lacks a strong, coherent and relevant planning agenda; arenas for strategic planning have been removed; there has been repeated bouts of deregulation; resources for planning have been cut-back; and the policy tool-box available to planning authorities is too limited. So we proposed five changes.
First, there is a clear need for a spatial plan, at least for England if not the UK (given the existence of such plans in the devolved regions) to supplement the National Planning Policy Framework. Together, this policy framework should set out the basis of planning as more than a support for economic activity. Rather it should embed a concern with well-being as the major planning concern.
Second, planning strategy should be developed at the lowest appropriate tier of government, following the principle of subsidiarity. This means that regional planning, at least for major infrastructure, needs to be reinstated as an essential link between national and local planning. But the importance of involving people in the planning decisions affecting their lives means that local planning itself should be strengthened. Wherever possible, strategy and decisions should be devolved down to the local or urban scale. Recent proposals for devolution to some cities goes some of the way here, but are without an adequate regional framework or measures to avoid increasing inequality between urban areas. Neighbourhood planning also has much to recommend it within this framework, but it needs to be properly resourced to fit into local planning.
Third, not only has deregulation gone too far but the public discourse around planning regulation has become far too negative. Decision-making on development proposals has a vital role to play in supporting negotiations for community benefits and ensuring a proper balance between economic, social and environmental concerns. Planning regulation is not a break on economic growth and should not be demonised as such.
Fourth, the planning tool-box needs to encompass measures for capturing the increased value of land consequent upon local planning for urban change. This could then become a major resource for funding community infrastructure and other benefits. Current CIL arrangements are inadequate to achieve this. The tool-box is also weakened by the lack of public land-ownership as a means of shaping new urban development both in terms of its location and content.
Finally, there remains a democratic deficit within the planning system. People, by and large, do not seek to get engaged in planning debates or are disappointed when they do. Decades of public participation exercises have failed to change this. Measures must be taken to make the development of strategies – at all scales – relevant to local people. Planner-public interactions have to move beyond conflict into more proactive and positive territory. This remains possibly the biggest challenge for the planning system to address. ■
Full details are available at: www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/planning/five-radical-ideas
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yvonne Rydin
Professor of Planning, Environment and Public Policy
Bartlett School of Planning – University College London
Tel: +44 (0)20 3108 9947
y.rydin@ucl.ac.uk
www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/planning
