SAVING THE HIGH STREET

Saving the High Street: the community takeover

Local community business ownership and access to buildings is essential to the survival of our high streets say Polly Swann and Professor Neil Lee

This is a critical moment for our high streets. The sight of boarded-up shops has become an increasingly common one in London and across the country, as high streets have had to compete with the rise of out-of-town shopping centres and the growth of online retail. They now face the very real challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic and social distancing measures. Yet, the pandemic also appears to have reinforced the growing recognition that the future for high streets lies in meeting peoples’ desire for more community-centred and vibrant town centres. There has been a clear resurgence of community spirit, a renewed connection with local areas, and a growing recognition that communities need to play a central role in shaping their town centres and high streets.

A recent study commissioned by the independent trust Power to Change - Saving the High Street: the community takeover by the London School of Economics and Political Science - explores how community businesses can help revive the high street’s fortunes and suggests that where local authorities have helped bring about community business ownership and access to both public and privately-owned buildings, the result has been more vibrant and resilient high streets.

Evidence gathered from the activities of six ‘best practice’ community businesses (see below) on their respective local high streets and town centres, strengthens the argument that community businesses can (and do) go further in offering a locally focused and longer-term solution to high street regeneration. • The Old Library in Bodmin, Cornwall – where a ‘significant’ local building has been used by a community business as a cultural facility • Midsteeple Quarter, Dumfries - a collaboration between the community, public and private sectors that is developing a group of high street buildings into a live/work quarter • Made in Ashford, Kent - an independent shop providing a platform for local business to sell on the high street and for community-based craft activities • Hebden Bridge town centre, West Yorkshire - a town with a thriving high street, with multiple community businesses supported by the local authority’s ‘community anchors’ policy • Radcliffe Market Hall in Bury, Greater Manchester - a rejuvenated market hall, combining a traditional market with an evening dine-in street food and community venue • Ultimate Picture Palace in Cowley, Oxford - an independent cinema that locals are trying to bring into community ownership

The impact of community business on the high street

Community businesses typically deliver what a particular place needs. Run by local people who understand their communities, they offer diverse and distinctive services that are tailored to local requirements. The study shows that community businesses can also have important wider impacts on the high street, extending beyond their ‘basic’ role of providing goods and/or services. For example, their ability to create ‘destination places’ that draw a broader mix of people back to the high street, helping to increase footfall and potentially the number of customers in other commercial businesses. Radcliffe Market Hall has successfully created a vibrant community space that is used throughout the day and into the evening for its dining experience, helping support an evening time economy in the town centre. Community businesses can also play an important role in building the reputation of the high street and in positively shaping people’s views of what can be achieved. The Midsteeple Quarter project has a very clear vision for Dumfries town centre based on local views and aspirations: to redevelop an under-used high street block into affordable homes, shops and work space.

In addition, community businesses are often very conscious that they are stewards of important local buildings (such as former municipal town halls and libraries) and are willing to use them in different ways to support the local community and build its resilience. For example, Hebden Bridge Town Hall played an important role in the town’s recovery from three major flooding events in 2012, 2015 and 2019.

The concern that community businesses might be competing in some unfair sense with existing businesses (particularly given they are able to use volunteers, access grants and make use of subsidised assets), is an important one. Yet, the evidence gathered points to community businesses acting as a complement to other high street businesses and they often offer a service which would not have been provided by the market, such as the Ultimate Picture Palace independent cinema.

Lessons for communities, local and national policymakers

While the driving force of the six community businesses has been the local community, the local authorities have realised it is in their enlightened self-interest to work to support them. Efforts to do this have included asset transfers, subsidised leases and using community businesses to deliver services. However, town centre regeneration is often made harder for local authorities because of fragmented property ownership and a lack of transparency on who owns the high street. With so many different landlords, it can be impossible for local actors to create unified regeneration strategies. The examples show how local authority support for asset ownership and management can give back more control and enable this sort of regeneration. Similarly, the ‘meanwhile use’ of buildings during the asset transfer process can be just as important.

Local authorities can also support community businesses to

manage both public and privately-owned assets through shortterm leases and licenses. Whilst ownership of the asset remains with the freeholder and provides no legal rights of tenure, it can be an important part of the process towards full community ownership and can allow community businesses to bring empty or under-used buildings into immediate community use.

Challenges of financing community businesses

Community groups often face difficulties in gaining access to assets and/or making the transition from grassroots fundraising to running a successful community business. Local authorities and other statutory funders can play a crucial role in supporting community businesses through these challenges. There is a clear need for local authorities to increase the level of funding and low-cost finance available to community businesses to support asset transfer, particularly funding to support planning applications, business development and ongoing sustainability of an asset.

Investing in community shares is another practical way of supporting a community business, generating income and community buy-in, with good examples in London and across the country (e.g. The Ivy House Community Pub in Southwark, Nudge Community Builders in Plymouth and Stretford Public Hall). Crowdfunding is increasingly being used to fund a broad range of local assets, on and off the high street, that would otherwise struggle to access funding elsewhere - including saving local shops and pubs from closure, to creating new community centres and leisure facilities.

Guiding principles for local authorities and communities

Local government clearly plays an important role in ensuring the success of community business and Power to Change is now urging local authorities and statutory funders to do more to support community businesses to grow their presence on high streets. The study suggests some guiding principles that can help local authorities achieve this:

1 Providing flexible finance for establishment, growth, and sustainability. Local authorities have an important ‘enabling role’ to play in providing flexible funding to community businesses. For example, through: – Pump-priming investment to support planning applications, business plan development and ensuring the ongoing sustainability of an asset; and – Providing grants, bridging loans and co-investment in properties to overcome early-stage financing problems faced by community business. 2 Ensure access to high street locations. Local authorities can: – Ease the asset transfer process/support greater community ownership; – Support the ‘meanwhile use’ of buildings and management leases of high street assets such as markets, public spaces, libraries and community hubs, directly to trusted community businesses; – Connect up community businesses with vacant properties on the high street; and – Provide leases which are either secured leases (providing security), or which start at a low level and scale up gradually, giving community businesses time to become financially sustainable. 3 Build effective, clear and collaborative long-term relationships. Local authorities can place community businesses at the heart of their strategies. For example: – Having a designated policy for community businesses; – Having community business representatives in the governing bodies of Business Improvement Districts; and – Ensuring community businesses are represented in economic development discussions, in particular Local Enterprise Partnership Boards and the London Economic Action Partnership. n

SEE: www.powertochange.org.uk/research/saving-highstreet-community-takeover/

ABOVE: Vision of a future high street that is communityled. Credit - Buttress

TOP & BOTTOM: Midsteeple SECOND: Made in Ashford THIRD: Oxford picture house

A new dawn for housing a more mature city

Increasing numbers of single households among adults with grown up children makes the post-war housing model of families in car-suburban housing unsustainable, in a society with a growing proportion of over 55 year olds says Lars Christian

Lars Christian, Urban Pilot London & Scandinavia After reading the latest London plan and the Westminster local plan, I wonder whether either authority have adequate regard for the oldest one sixth of the population. Twenty-first century London is about to either fail a majority of elderly or a large proportion of the elderly. Why that is, may be partly social, partly economic, partly cultural, partly ignorance. This article argues that the provision of housing for the elderly should change. For the benefit of the elderly, their children and grand children, the economy, the state, the health service, the social services, our local neighbourhoods, communities, villages, towns and cities alike. As well as for the benefit of families with school-age children, needing family size homes, now frequently occupied by senior couples and single pensioners.

Post-war wrong & inadequacy

My arguments build on the presumption that the western post-war model of providing housing, social services, health services and caring for the elderly is inadequate or wrong. As the model is too focused on two proportions of the elderly, the 10 per cent sickest and the 10 per cent wealthiest. As about a third of the former is cared for in state provided nursing homes, one in twenty of the latter in private nursing homes or similar, and maybe one in ten of the 75+ with (high intensity) home help or home nursing.

But that leaves maybe as much as a quarter of the remaining 80 per cent in inadequate housing, in inadequate communities, with little or inadequate care, too far away from services, close relatives, family or friends. It is some of these 1 in 5 elderly that I believe can be housed for differently, housed better and housed at a lower cost than at present – to the state, the individuals, and the society at large. In London, the number of elderly is proportionally lower than in any village, town or city elsewhere in the UK, with a few exceptions. But I still believe that London could do or should do its outmost to cater as best as possible for the 'average' mid-income elderly, as the total number of elderly in London is still staggering: two-third million in their 60s, two-fifth million in their 70s and one-third million in their 80s or 90s. [60s 70.000p 45.000h; 70s 40.000p 25.000h; 80/90s 30.000p 20.000h]

Accessibility, mobility & e-cycling

The elderly need easy access to amenities, services, transport, 'neighbours' and friends. Some will have relatives or family nearby, others will not. With an increasing number of single elderly, housing these in isolated suburban communities is by default the wrong solution. The elderly should increasingly be housed in or within long walking or short cycling distance of town centres and/or train/tube/trams stations. In communities where walking or (e-)cycling are the default modes of transport – with public transport and the car as number three and four. (E-)Cycling allows the elderly to easily get around in (e-)cycling friendly communities, if and where local authorities and road authorities plan for this. Where the elderly can travel a mile or so by (e)-bike for everyday chores, amenities and services. Rather than be restricted to half a mile, a quarter of a mile, or less where they are restricted to walking only.

Look to Denmark & New Labour

One nation that has maybe done more than any other nation in housing the elderly differently, is Denmark, where a small proportion of the over 55 year olds have chosen to form or move to a growing number of 55+ housing communities. Typically in communities of 20-30 row houses, but also a small number of 30-50 apartments around a courtyard garden, with a guest bedroom, common kitchen and dining room, but no staff. Some as owners, some as tenants. All targeting primarily 'younger' elderly to move in. And mostly for the mid-income elderly, rather than the poorest or the richest (1). In Denmark, the 55+ housing communities typically self-organise weekly dinners, one or more weekly social gatherings in the garden or dining room, and mostly look after their garden or courtyard themselves. A model that requires a balanced proportion of elderly in different age groups. And a model where the elderly themselves 'vet' who is eligible to join them, for the community to remain self supporting with no staff. Germany, Japan and the Netherlands also have extensive purpose built senior housing, the two latter with dedicated taxes, but these are typically staffed, so catering for elderly with premium pension and/or premium health insurance.

Somewhat similar, New Labour revolutionised student housing throughout the UK, to the extent that as many students at present live in purpose built private student housing as university run student housing (one sixth each). Or about one third of a million units, typically with up to 500 units per building or site –in a thousand or more buildings. About 50 purpose built annually during the last 2 decades, mostly in or near city centres.

Rethinking London delivery

If 5 to 10 per cent of elderly households in London are gradually over 2-3 decades housed in 55+ housing communities, this amounts to about ½ to 1 per cent of households in their 60s yearly moving into purpose built senior housing communities. Leading to 2½-5 per cent of the 60-80 years old living in 55+ housing communities after ten years. And 5-10 per cent of the 60-100 years old throughout London after a further ten years.

This may seem a small proportion of elderly, but in total across London, this amounts to 70–140.000 elderly or 45–

810 bud på fremtidens seniorbofællesskab

3. Tænk hverdag før fest

Tagterrasse Ovenlys

Mange eksisterende seniorbofællesskaber består af individuelle boliger, der ligger samlet omkring et centralt fælleshus. Det kan fungere godt, men der kan også være tilfælde, hvor man ikke får nok ud af de mange fælles kvadratmetre, som går til et fælleshus. Det kan være, fordi fælleshuset ligger væk fra boligen, så man aktivt skal vælge at gå derhen. Eller fordi fælleshuset er indrettet til fest og fællesspisning og i mindre grad indbyder til uformel hygge og de aktiviteter, som beboerne kaster sig over i hverdagen. Ofte er det også i de uformelle og uplanlagte møder, at fællesskabet folder sig ud. Når man hilser på hinanden på vej til og fra. På opgangen, svalegangen, ved vaskemaskinen, i haven eller drivhuset.

Læsesal

Café/Lounge

Tekøkken

PC-rum

90.000 households (2020). Elderly that can benefit socially, culturally, mental/physical health and/or economically from living in purpose built or provided 55+ housing communities. With no staff their local borough or housing association. A third could opt for shared ownership, mostly households previously Fra fælleslokaler til hverdagsfællesskab Når man skaber et nyt seniorbofællesskab, har man muligheden for at tænke forfra i forhold til at blande boliger og Motionsrum except for home care and/or nursing for the most elderly propor- owner occupied with an average orfællesarealer. Man kan skabe et hverdagsfællesskab, hvor tion of households. above average pension. And a third ofde fælles rum er en naturlig udvidelse af boligen, og ikke

But could such a model be delivered throughout London? households could opt for outright own-bare et sted, man kommer forbi engang imellem. Man kan Where the target is mid-income 55+ households, rather than the ership. Maybe half within the samearbejde med ankomsten, opgangen og hverdagspraktikken elite or the poorest? With about 15 per cent of the London popu- 55+ mixed housing community, and half in single tenure com-såsom at hente post og gå ud med affald. Alt sammen kan lation being 60+ in 2011, against 24 per cent in the rest of munities. Whether the community housing model could bene-være små anledninger til fællesskab.

ABOVE:

Bibliotek The figure shows a multi

England. With an average of 75 homes per community, this fit 55+ households in private rent on average pensions needs amounts to 600–1200 housing communities across London, or further exploration. Maybe not a short term requirement, but aMan kan eksempelvis invitere til hverdagsfællesskab ved:

story block by Praksis Arkitekter, potentially in

20-40 housing communities per borough. If this is to be provided need that will nevertheless soon. over 2-3 decades, about 30 to 50 housing communities have to be established yearly, or about 1½ 55+ housing community per bor- Small household & suburban rethink needed – At placere fællesrum ved ankomsten til bofællesskabet, så det bliver naturligt at kigge forbi, når man går til og fra. Tagterrasse Fælleskøkken ough annually. Maybe half as new built and half reusing existing If more and more urban and suburban households consist of– At tænke praktiske funktioner som modtagelse af post og (social) housing stock. Freeing up maybe as many as 45-90.000 only one person – young, middle-aged or elderly – how doesvarer, vask, parkering af cykler o.a. sammen med mulighefamily size homes for couples with school-age children. der for ophold. this manifests itself in the provision of new housing in inner

Horsens, Jutland, with a handful of apartments per floor around a stair with common areas on each floor, a workshop on the ground floor, a common

In comparison, Legal & General through Guild Living aims to and outer London? During the twentieth century, councils and– At indrette fællesrum, så de kan bruges til mange forskelliprovide 6000 senior housing units during a five year period. This ge ting. housing associations typically provided family size housing, in Indgang Værksted

kitchen and dining room on the first floor and a rooftop equals to four communities yearly at an average of 300 units the form of apartments in inner London and a mix of apart– At skabe rammer for uformelle hilse-på-situationer mellem terrace with allotments each, mostly in the southeast. Six times larger than the average ments and row houses in outer London. As more and morenaboer. Det kan f.eks. være med små nicher til ophold ved Danish ones. Whether L&G is targeting primarily the 10-20 per households consist of only one person, the provision of housingfordøren, naboaltaner med plads til at stille et bord ud etc. cent wealthiest pensioners, and what age group, is unclear. have to adapt and change faster than at present to catch up with the society-at-large. Similarly the provision of single or– At skabe synlighed på kryds og tværs, så man føler sig Mixture of tenures Across London, maybe a third of the 55+ households could be couples-only occupancy flats in suburban locations, more than ⅔ to 1 mile from town centres or train/tube stations need to som en del af et fællesskab, også når man ikke aktivt er sammen med nogen. I PFA’s seniorbofællesskab i Horsens ligger de fælles-at social rent level, equal to what households pay at present to be reduced, maybe to a maximum of half of new flats in anyfaciliteter op igennem etagerne som en udvidelse af >>> opgangen. Et konkret bud på, hvordan man tegner for hverdagsfællesskab. www.planninginlondon.com Issue 115 October-December 2020Illustration fra værdiprogram: Praksis Arkitekter

>>> authority or location, with the other half being closer. Many can agree that existing and new row housing communities in the UK could benefit from more diversity. But to make sure that the majority of the apartments are within walking or short (e-)cycling distances of squares, gardens, clusters of cafes, shops, services, amenities, train, tube, tram stations etc is more of a challenge. Including in the several dozens of new garden communities throughout southern England, all planned as 20th century car-suburban rather than 19th or 21th century walking and (e)-cycling (sub)urban. As well as throughout the fast growing coastal communities of Hampshire, Sussex, Kent, Essex and

Anglia – where a growing proportion of affluent elderly retire –many in (new) car-suburban family size housing communities and neighbourhoods. Typically where 9 in 10 local journeys are by car, and 9 in 10 of local destinations are more than ⅔ to 1 mile away.

Land requirement per borough

Identifying enough housing land may prove challenging, depending on what proportion of land is in public or local authority ownership per London borough. Similarly, building 900–1800 new homes yearly for 55+ households may prove impractical as this amounts to 3-5 per cent of homes built in London yearly. On the other hand, if one 55+ housing community is built every 3 to 5 years per local authority borough, one per housing association and one per private developer per borough over 2-3 decades – maybe the task proves less 'mammoth'. With a similar number of homes converted every 3 to 5 years by the same organisations using existing housing stock. Further, as most London boroughs are the single biggest landowner, and the state in some boroughs the second biggest, identifying land in a majority of London boroughs

Footnotes (1) seniorboligen.dk & realdania.dk/tema/seniorbofaellesskaber (2) Including Chichester (25 per cent above 65), Arun (26 per cent), Rother (28 per cent), Tendring (27 per cent), N.Norfolk (29 per cent). (3) Few ±1 million suburban communities exist in northern Europe where the majority of the inhabitants has no access to frequent suburban trains, metro or trams for local journeys, with maybe the exception of several of the home counties around London, West Yorkshire, south Wales, and 'outer' Dublin (800k). (4) Two other 'row housing nations', Denmark and the Netherlands, are also among the the North Sea, together with Germany.

top three cycling nations across may prove less of a challenge over 2-3 decades.

But how much land does a 55+ housing community of 50100 homes in inner and outer London need? Building a block of 50-100 homes, with 8 storeys of 7-14 homes per floor, has a footprint of 500-1000 sq.m. With a 500 sq.m ground level garden – in addition to roof top gardens and communal balconies facing east, south and west respectively – sites of 1000-1500 sq.m are needed in inner London and in 'urban' outer London locations, close to high streets and train/tube stations. In more 'suburban' outer London – with 4-6 storeys of 15-20 homes per floor and building footprints of 1000-1500 sq.m – sites of 15002000 sq.m are needed.

Home counties & coastal suburbia

Elsewhere in the home counties, including along the coasts of Anglia and the Southeast, establishing 55+ housing communities on a similar (or larger) scale than in London – in the form of apartment or mansion blocks, near high streets and/or train stations – would release an even higher number of much valued family size suburban housing. Including in three of the largest clusters of senior coastal communities in England outside London – in Sussex, Kent and Essex/Anglia (2). The three also being among the largest and most carintense suburban communities in northern Europe – with about 1 million inhabitants along a 70-80 mile long coastal strip in the two former (3).

Social, demographic and economic benefits

The 55+ housing communities advocated here are for the 'younger' elderly, moving house in their late 50s or early 60s. Where the housing communities are self supporting, with no staff. Where the cost to the occupiers, whether they are owner-occupiers, shared ownership or tenants – as well as the cost to local authorities, housing associations and the state –is equivalent to typical local authority, housing association and mid-market private housing. Including freeing up larger family size (row) housing for couples with children.

With the social, cultural, health, demographic, ecologic and economic benefits 55+ community housing offers all generations – children, in-laws and grand children included. Where the social benefits of having several dozens 55+ within one medium size community is invaluable. Where the various personalities, whether they are exceptionally introvert, extrovert, curious, gossipy, organised, chaotic, proactive, lacy or sporty, can primarily be found in groups over a certain size. Not in groups that are too small, and less distinct in groups that are too large.

Afterword

With an increasing number of single households among adults with grown up children, the post-war housing model of families in car-suburban housing neighbourhoods is not sustainable, in a society with a growing proportion of over 55 year olds. This is particularly evident throughout the British Isles, where a larger proportion of households live in car-suburban neighbourhoods than elsewhere in Europe. Where new car-suburban (typically row or semi-detaching) housing, outnumber new urban housing. Throughout most of England and Ireland, with the exception of London and maybe a handful of larger English cities (4).

Above, I advocate for a majority of new homes to be built in more accessible walking and bikeable urban communities – as quality apartments or mansion blocks with communal gardens –within long walking or short (e-)cycling distance of high streets and town centres. With the added benefit closer (urban) living has on mental and physical health – as well as for commercial, retail, social and leisure pursuits. Among both the over and under 55 year olds – singles, single parents, the young and childless couples included. n

The wrong answers to the wrong questions?

Countering the misconceptions driving the Government’s planning reform agenda Hugh Ellis introduces a paper published by academics in August in response to the planning White Paper

Hugh Ellis is policy director at TCPA

The “radical reforms” proposed for the planning system in England are framed by a view of planning as an outdated blockage to the development we need to “build back better” from the economic impacts of COVID-19.

As a group of planning academics and researchers, we are deeply concerned that this agenda has been driven by ideologically-motivated free-market think tanks and self-interested property lobbies rather than sound evidence.

In The Wrong Answers to the Wrong Questions published on the TCPA website today we set why the government is wrong, how many of their key claims fly in the face of that evidence and ignore significant tensions and trade-offs involved in the development of land.

In particular, we present a critical review of five key claims that underpin the reform agenda:

The government is wrong to say the planning system is responsible for the housing crisis

The claim: The government claims that the planning system acts as a major constraint on development and blames it for the existence of the housing crisis.

The reality: Around 90 per cent of applications for planning permission are approved in England. Consent has been granted for between 800,000 to 1,000,000 new houses that remain unbuilt. Rather than the Soviet-era anachronism described by think tanks, the planning system in England is already permissive and more than capable of supplying land to the market. The failure to build new housing is not a result of excessive state regulation, but of dysfunctional markets and a failure to invest in social housing. Further deregulating the planning system simply will not resolve the crisis of housing affordability. [For more on this see the contributions by Quintin Bradley, Bob Colenutt, Andy Inch, Kiera Chapman and Malcolm Tait]

The government is wrong to suggest that radical simplification will produce a more efficient and effective planning system

The claim: Up to now the English planning system has used a discretionary model of decision-making. This means decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, informed by local plans and planning experts who are democratically accountable to local government. The government has presented this way of working as a major drag anchor on development, claiming that a ‘zonal’ approach based on earmarking land for either ‘growth’, ‘renewal’ or ‘protection’ would work better. Under this change, local plans will effectively determine rights to develop, theoretically removing the need to negotiate over individual developments. Government argue this will simplify the process of gaining development consent, offering greater certainty to developers and communities. They also propose to switch from a

qualitative document-driven system to a quantitative datadriven one, arguing that this standardization will make planning more efficient and modern.

The reality: The government is overstating the costs of discretionary decision-making and the benefits of zoning. Evidence from other countries with zoning systems in place suggest that they do not necessarily improve efficiency or outcomes, and that they can lead to bad decisions because they are inflexible in the face of changing circumstances. Experience in England already shows that simplified planning zones create significant risks for communities and local democracy, and don’t necessarily provide certainty for developers either. The proposed combination of broad, centrallydefined categories of land use with slimmed-down plans is highly unlikely to work and far removed from international examples of zoning. It fails to acknowledge the variety of complex issues raised by development and the inevitable conflicts they generate between different interest groups. Our existing discretionary planning system is far from perfect but it’s not the real problem here. At its best it offers a flexible and democratically accountable way of balancing the needs of developers against those of communities. The introduction of a data-driven process is likely to be used to automate and to privatise parts of the system, further reducing democratic accountability. >>>

>>> [For more on this see the contributions in the report by Philip

Booth, Sue Brownill, Edward Shepherd, Alexander Wilson, Geoff

Vigar and Mark Tewdwr-Jones, Andy Inch, Kiera Chapman and

Malcolm Tait]

The government is wrong that more permissive planning will produce better places

The claim: We need a more permissive planning system, so that developers and landowners can change the use of land in response to market signals. The economic benefits of this outweigh the risks.

The reality: These reforms will afford power to the already privileged to pursue development in their own self-interest, irrespective of whether this benefits the wider community. Previous deregulation of planning control (such as granting automatic rights to change the use of buildings) has led to the production of sub-standard housing that lacks basic amenities and is poorly connected to jobs, schools and other facilities. This has exacerbated spatial and health inequalities by creating poor quality living conditions for many of the most vulnerable in society. Further deregulatory measures will exacerbate these problems, creating dysfunctional development and undermining attempts to coordinate public and private investment. Deregulation will create a race to the bottom, lowering quality rather than improving standards. [for more on this see the contributions in the report by Ben Clifford and Sue Brownill]

The government is wrong about the capacity and willingness of the market to build back better

The claim: Freed from the unnatural ‘rationing’ of land by the planning system, the free-market will build back better, and help to ‘level up’ parts of the country that have been left behind over recent decades.

The reality: England already has a poorly resourced and highly permissive planning system, which produces outcomes that favour the interests of property developers. There is no evidence to suggest that a more permissive approach will improve the quality of our built environment or address the inequalities generated by market-led development. Good design, for example, will not result from the automatic application of standardised codes and measures. And good planning is about much more than the design. Building better places requires the strategic coordination of infrastructure investment with high quality development that can unlock its benefits, something the current proposals completely ignore. Failing to plan for this is hugely wasteful and will generate social, economic and environmental costs for future generations. [for more on this see the contributions in the report by Bob Colenutt, Tim Marshall, Sue Brownill and Michael Edwards]

The Government is wrong to say that the reforms will lead to greater democracy and participation in the planning system.

The Claim: participation is restricted by the cumbersome nature of the current system, local democracy and accountability will now be enhanced by technology and transparency.

The Reality: while it is true that digital methods may enable some sections of the population to engage more with planning, this is only part of the story. There are real dangers of digital exclusion in any wholesale move towards e-participation. The proposals in the White Paper also cut in half existing opportunities to engage with the system by removing the public’s right to comment on planning applications and restricting it to plan making and design codes. Experience shows it is only when a proposal is actively being discussed, rather than the plan-making stage, that most people are motivated to engage. Participation restricted to commenting on what buildings look like rather than what they are providing and whether this meets local needs is not meaningful. Neighbourhood plans are to be brought more into line with local plans, thereby removing a key current aspect of planning democracy. Finally, these reforms represent a major centralisation of power by central government and it’s redistribution to the private sector; not the general public. [for more on this see the contributions in the report by Alexander Wilson, Geoff Vigar and Mark Tewdwr-Jones, Andy Inch, Kiera Chapman and Malcolm Tait and Sue Brownill]

The Questions We Should Be Asking

Following decades of piecemeal reform and underfunding, our planning system is weak. It lacks the powers it needs to create high quality development. From the tragedy of Grenfell Tower to the scandalous shortage of decent, affordable housing and the looming threat of climate breakdown, there is overwhelming evidence that the prevailing model of light-touch regulation and market-driven change has failed.

Rather than less planning, we need more. To build a better, more democratic future, we need to strategically integrate investment, coordinate development, and ensure high-quality outcomes. Of course, there are costs to such a system but the wider public benefits are potentially immense. A period of significant public investment offers huge opportunities to tackle some of the biggest challenges we face as a society: the crises of decent, affordable housing, physical and mental health, climate change, and social inequality. A more positive planning reform agenda could play a crucial part in these vital tasks. n This article is based on the executive summary of the report. You can read the full