Michael Gove at MHCLG, and have u-turns on the white paper made plans better or worse?

As we digest the latest reshuffling of the government, time will tell what it means to have an MHCLG headed by Michael Gove in his new position as ‘Secretary of State for Building Back Better and Levelling Up’.

Earlier on in the week, the Government were predicted to make a u-turn on the planning white paper. The paper was published last year and originally proposed drastic changes to the existing planning system. Some of the proposals were seen as a welcome change, modernising and attempting to expedite aspects of the planning process. However, other aspects may have been described as “proper whack” by a certain junior planning officer and have been seen less favourably by both the public and disgruntled Tory backbenchers who have made it abundantly clear that they would not back the proposals. The response throughout the consultation period, and the damage it may possibly have on the Government’s popularity (already evident through the party’s shock defeat to the Liberal Democrats on the Chesham and Amersham by-election), is the likely reason why a U-turn is being heavily rumoured in the news this week.

One of the key original proposals set out in the white paper introduced a new “zonal” system, which introduced three categories of land; growth areas (suitable for substantial development), renewal areas (suitable for development), and protected areas. This was intended to speed up the planning process, enabling appropriate development to come forward quicker. However, serious questions were raised over the ability to obtain more efficient planning permissions, which would not be subject to the scrutiny and input of local residents at the later development stages.  

The introduction of mandatory house building targets for local authorities was seen as unnecessary uniformity. This was planned to create a standard formula set by national government rather than local authorities. The idea of a top-down target was perceived by many as a risky approach, especially with the uncertainty caused by Covid-19 and Brexit. But fundamentally, this plan would undermine local democratic control of the development process.

So, what next?

The consultation for the white paper was held last year, receiving more than 40,000 responses. The Government’s response was due in Spring, but it has been pushed back to autumn, and will present a revised set of changes, which are not likely to be as drastic as the original propositions. It is rumoured that the “zonal” system is set to be dropped, as well as the mandatory house building targets. However, it has been reported that councils may still be asked to specify “growth sites”, where the planning authority pre-emptively assumes ‘in favour’ of a development and planning applications would be fast-tracked, if developers tick all the required boxes.

Other proposals set out in the white paper, such as the reduction in the time allocated for councils to produce their local plans (30 months down from 7 years), remain unclear whether they will still be incorporated in the revised white paper

Small changes to the planning system have already been introduced, through the recently revised NPPF, National Model Design Code, and the new Biodiversity 3.0 metric. However, there is likely to be further debate before the Planning Bill is published. More updates are sure to come in the following weeks, and with Gove now occupying the ‘SoS’ role, we will be sure to keep our eyes peeled, as any changes will almost certainly have an impact on our roles as planners, and on the planning system as we know it.