Jeremy's Blog 14th April 2023: Planning for Change or Hiding From It
This article by Jeremy Moody first appeared in the CAAV e-Briefing of 13th April 2023
England may be demonstrating that one thing worse and less effective than having national panning targets is not having them. The August 2020 Planning White Paper proposed a new approach looking afresh at where people want to live as revealed by the ratio between prices and wages. The early retreat from that turned into a Parliamentary rout before Christmas on the Levelling up and Urban Regeneration Bill, such that almost any ground for refusal will be valid and the value of recourse to appeal is diminished.
The extent of that collapse was threaded through the recent consultation on the NPPF and is now revealed by the reports of 55 local planning authorities having already suspended or abandoned local housing targets. As we run out of backyards, so we move from NIMBYs towards BANANAs – build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone – and reach grid lock, obstructing the very means to achieve the prosperity that would fund what we want.
Even if some polls might suggest more open-minded but lower key attitudes, energised campaign groups dominate debate and real elections. The reflex action is to resist, emphasising protection rather than preparing for the future with the change that entails. That change will be the more disruptive the longer we leave it.
Yet we have so much to do. Housing is one prominent topic. International comparison suggests we are two million houses short for our population. Between planning control, the early impact of nutrient neutrality and wider economics, the numbers being built are falling towards those of the late 1940s. The average age of a first time buyer is now reported as 37, a shrinking private rented sector sees rents escalate and the problems of precariousness accumulate.
More broadly, the scale of the infrastructure work needed for a changing economy, mitigating and adapting to climate change and meeting new social needs becomes more urgent. Campaigns against development may often rely on a lack of infrastructure, from doctors’ surgeries to road capacity, but then resist the enabling infrastructure. Trains are preferred to roads – until a new railway is proposed.
The development needed to manage climate change tests the dilemmas nicely in answering a major environmental challenge but intruding on people’s protection of their own environment. The trade-offs to be faced are real but the costs of not acting are vast.
The gigawatt scale of what is needed to replace fossil fuel is also vast, not just producing renewable energy but transmitting and using it: from turbine and panel through pylon and cable to home, business and farm. Ensuring future supplies of water for people, business and farming is a parallel challenge requiring reservoirs, carriers and efficiency.
We did such work to open up the last century: electrifying Britain, piping water to almost all properties – even the first tarmacking of all our roads – and now need to tackle this one. The investment is large but the larger and urgent need is for the determination to reshape systems from planning and connections to contract management.
Especially with the localism agenda of the last decade, but really in almost any society, there is a need to make a clearly explained case to our people to support the power connections, the water supplies and the housing needed for a better future. As well as arguing for a refreshed practical approach to the farmers and landowners affected, the people around them need to feel benefits – so they are not just “flyover country”.
Burdened by an increased aversion to risk and change, we risk worse; aspic may preserve appearances but it does not promote vitality.