The shadow local government secretary wants to set the record straight about Conservative planning policies
Your cover feature on the Conservatives’ planning green paper drew a number of misleading conclusions and I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight (‘Left high and dry’, by Peter Hetherington, February 26–March 4).
The most substantial error was the suggestion that ‘a massive 90% backing’ would be needed in a referendum before any development could proceed. Clearly, this would bring development to a halt in this country and lead to chaos – and we have no intentions of introducing such a policy.
I can only assume that this misunderstanding has arisen by the conflation of two separate policies. Our housing green paper, published last year, proposed local housing trusts. These new community-led bodies would allow people in villages and towns to grant themselves planning permission for local housing developments, provided there was no more than 10% opposition in a community referendum.
Clearly, a threshold of no more than 10% opposition is very different from a threshold of 90% approval. More importantly, however, this referendum process applies only to the development proposals of local housing trusts. Neither our new Local Plans (which will replace Local Development Frameworks) nor, God forbid, individual applications would require a referendum for approval.
I would also like to correct the assertion that the green paper spells the end of the Section 106 planning gain system. S106 will in fact be retained but returned to its original site-specific remediation function. In recent years, it has morphed into an entirely different concept and the lengthy and complicated negotiations it involves are now widely seen as a barrier to getting developments under way. Instead, we will introduce a much more straightforward, upfront and transparent local tariff system designed to give much greater certainty.
Your cover feature concluded that ‘a higher authority’ was needed to balance competing interests in the system and the council might be that body. I agree. Indeed, we make it clear in the green paper that local authorities are central to our vision of a localised and accountable planning system.
We are unashamedly pro-development. That is why we would introduce a presumption in favour of sustainable development. We want more homes to be built but it’s vital to ensure that the right homes are built in the right places. It is wrong to believe that the distant bureaucrats who dream up Regional Spatial Strategies and housing targets are those best placed to decide where development should happen.
That role should be taken by local communities and local authorities, working in collaboration to derive, from the bottom up, Local Plans that clearly define where and what future developments they want. If you treat people like adults and give them a real say in shaping their communities, they will see the benefits of – and be much more likely to support – appropriate and sustainable development. The top-down target regime is a cause of Nimbyism, not an answer to it, and it needs to go.
Our incentives, such as council tax match funding, would also help to foster a pro-development culture, as communities would be able to see tangible benefits of growth, instead of seeing development as a drain on existing resources. This policy would not remove money from councils’ direct control because all the funds would go directly to local planning authorities, to be spent as they choose.
The number of houses built in 2009 was the lowest since 1946 – and is forecast to fall to levels not seen since 1923. Yet opposition to development has never been greater. This is what the planning system has delivered and why it needs a radical overhaul.
Bob Neill is the shadow local government secretary
