The path from Policy Exchange to Downing street advisor is a
well trodden one. We of course had the ideas from the tenure of
Alex ”Half Baked’ Marsh – including Starter Homes (not one of
which has been built).
Now we have Jack Airey appointed as number 10s Housing and
Policy Advisor – an entirely self appointed expert in the field
with again no professional background or qualifications in the
field other than having scribbled a provocative pamphlet or two
from that favorite SW1 Dumbtank – the Policy Exchange. Further
‘wierdos and misfits’ will follow surely.
This would not be so worrying if the Planning White Paper was
not due to be out by mid year.
Jack’s big idea, from the recent PE Pamphlet
‘Rethinking the Planning System for the 21st Century‘is
basically to scrap the planning system and start again. He may
gain traction as the White Paper seemed headed soloely up the ally
of greasing the wheels of prócedulrism rather than analysising
outcomes and deep rotted causes of problems.
The Pamphlet states:
Land use is rationed depending on what planners think is
‘needed’ and thus on aspirations rather than reality. Local
planning authorities allocate specific uses for all individual land
plots in their area over 15 to 20 year periods based on projections
of ‘need’. Yet rapid changes in the economy, society and
technology, as well as the unpredictability of human and commercial
activity, mean that the ‘needs’ of households and businesses
cannot be accurately projected, certainly not over 15 or 20
years.In areas of high demand for developable land, the strong
tendency has been
to excessively ration the supply of developable land. Permissioned
land is therefore highly prized and highly priced – excessive
rationing has artificially inflated the value of land use
allocations, often to extreme levels.
Ending detailed land use allocations. The planning system
not try to systematically control what specific activity can take
on individual land plots based on fallacious projections of
and commercial ‘need’. Local planning authorities have
ineffective and inefficient at micro-managing land markets. In
regard, the supply of new homes, offices and other types of
use should no longer be capped by local planning authorities in
local plans or by site allocations.
• Introducing a binary zonal land use planning system. Land
should be zoned either as development land, where there is a
presumption in favour of new development, or non-development
land, where there is not a presumption and minor development
is only possible in more restricted circumstances. Land zoned
development land will include existing urban areas and new
extensions made possible by infrastructure improvements. In
• Zones should, in general, have no reference to what
land uses are allowed on individual private land plots. Market
conditions should instead determine how urban space is used
in the development zone. Land and buildings in the urban
area would then be able to change use without requiring the
permission of the state (as long as rules on separating certain
harmful uses are not broken, as detailed below).
• Zonal designations should be separate from any concept
or calculation of ‘need’. Instead, they should be dependent
on metrics that determine whether land has good access
potential, whether new development would cause
environmental disturbance; and the potential for an existing
built development to expand. Zones should be updated an
ongoing basis and would need to be periodically reviewed by
the Planning Inspectorate.
And final key point
The rules in local plans for new development should be
controlled by local authorities.
They are necessarily political and should be voted on by local
councillors. The Planning Inspectorate should be required to
monitor whether local and community rules conform to national
planning policy and intervene where necessary. This should be
the only stage in the planning system when local politicians have a
say. They should have no say over deciding applications for new
developments – this should be a purely administrative exercise
checking the proposal conforms to local rules
At the heart of this analysis is an essentially sound
oberservation. Plans ration land, they ration land too much
because of the local politics of Nimbyism, we need a more rules
based certain approach.
For many years this blog – and practice and planning thought
in the UK, has got ever closer and step by step to implmenting –
especially on large masterplanned schemes, the sessentials of
zoning and subdivision systems, supported by a development code,
that we see as best practice by many of our european neighbours
that build far more per head.
However his proposals are not based on best practice anywhere
– they seem based instead on what seems to be a wheese dept up
one alcohol fuelled SW1 dumbtak pub lunch – the ‘binary
However the analysis that planners proposing need is the problem
is flawed. Planners propose need local politicians fight for
lower need is clearly the problem.
Simply allocating areas based on ‘suotability’and abolishing
need is simply impractical and the phrase ‘rapid changes in the
economy, society and technology, as well as the unpredictability of
human and commercial activity, mean that the ‘needs’ of
households and businesses cannot be accurately projected, certainly
not over 15 or 20 years” is to repeat exactly the crucial
planning mistake made by John Prescott which ended long term
planning for housing and led to the reduction of housing numbers in
startegic plans. He makes the elementary ‘mistake of confusing
forescasts and projections. Housing numbers as the ONS stresses
are forecast not projected. When one looks back at housing
numbers over 40 -60 years it shows that household formation dips
during recessions and period of low economic growth and rises
during boomtimes. No surprise people need houses to form into.
As people take decades to grow up, work and die it takes seismic
changes over decades to shift the trend of need.
Any plan of any form is always based on a place with a certain
population. People that need jobs, houses, schools etc. You
cannot plan for ‘suitability’in the abstract. Suitability
varies radically by scale, you cannot assume scale without
people. A site suitable for 20 houses on the edge of a Yorkshire
Dale village may not be suitable for a Garden City of 50,000
people. This issue gets especially highlighted when you are
dealing with whole new communities which always and everywhere in
the history of planning are planned because a certain quantum of
people cannot be housed because of constraints somewhere else.
Airey’s manic system does not abolish forecasting it hides
it. It is still there under the illusionists cloth. If if
assumes suitability for a certain scale of development you can
claculate from that the population, which always must come from
some place. This is just replacing explict modelling with non
transperent and opaque modelling. Furthermore you cannot assess
suitability of new sites without infrastructure. If you plan
beyond need you risk leapfrog and scattered development not
supported by infrastructure.
All of this of course is planning 101 in any urban planning
course anywhere in the world. I know a few in Kabul that it might
be productive to send Airey on a secondment to to gain more of an
insite as a ‘wiredo and misfit’.