Planning reform: simplify, standardise, and engage

Reform is always with us in the planning system. The ideas, processes and legislation of one generation become the primeval ooze of the next. Sticky, disorienting and degraded instructions for how we manage change in the built environment, which both slows down development, further befuddles citizens and creates yet more opportunity for gaming, arbitrage and speculation by land owners, property developers and consultants.  

There are absolutely quick wins and sleight-of-hand tricks that the new Labour government can implement to make it a bit easier to deliver the homes and infrastructure Britain needs to grow our economy. New towns, grey belts, better resourced departments and rapid re-writes of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are all necessary. But they won’t add up to the type and scale of reform needed to deliver 300,000 homes per year.

Real reform of planning is tricky, time consuming and will require significant cultural change. Interestingly, I don’t think it needs to be that politically painful. The elements that most need fixing are technocratic and merely require a steady hand on the tiller and an ability to confront vested interests but not necessarily electorally significant NIMBYs.

Demystifying the planning system

It all starts with how we perceive the role of planning. As with our ‘constitution’, we pride ourselves on the bespoke and unspoken nature of our planning system. When doing research with planners as part of projects with Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the most common refrain is “it depends”. But invariably it's difficult to define precisely what it depends on. 

I’d argue the reason for this is that we’ve created a system based on the 20 not the 80 of the 80/20 rule. Many actors whether its councillors wanting to appeal to voters with how special and unique their place is, to planning, architecture, surveying and other professionals wanting to protect their mythical, unlearnable, unknowable skills, nobody wants to admit that the majority of places, and the processes to govern them, are pretty much the same. People, bricks, grass, pipes, roads, windows, water…

There are of course still special and contextually specific aspects of places that are bespoke and require specialist and locally grounded research, analysis and policy-making. But the design of the system means far too much time, money and effort is spent on its mundane parts, and far too little on the bits that add value.

To free the time for planners to plan, we need to create greater consistency and clarity, making it easier for citizens to engage with it and developers to build the right homes in the right places. This means paying closer attention to the words and data used in the system, including their context. But it needn’t mean a politically divisive ‘zonal’ system.  

Removing regulation and nuance

So how do we better think about and draw the dividing line between the 80 and 20 of planning? Where should we seek to create more consistency (and speed)? Through standards, methods and repeatable patterns? And where do we need to slow down and devote more effort from planners, citizens and developers? 

One way is to think about which elements of the system are essentially puzzles that can be solved (at least theoretically) by science and data, and those which are mysteries that combine uncollectible data and infinitely complex and uncomputable human processes. Too often planning attempts to treat mysteries as puzzles; i.e. ‘how can housing needs be “objectively” assessed?’. At the same time, puzzles are often treated as mysteries. In a world of perfect information, viability assessments are a computational process but we treat them as a (dark) art.

Real reform would involve removing layers of legislative and regulatory sediment, not adding more. And for the layers that remain, it would seek to remove nuance and “it depends'' unless it can state what it depends on. We need more quantifiable or measurable policies, and fewer references to character and setting. 

To fix this, there needs to be a defined set of minimum chapters for a local plan, a standard set of evidence-based studies, all underpinned by clear and consistent methodologies in Planning Practice Guidelines. Of course, local planning authorities can have additional chapters and bespoke studies, but they must expect them to receive additional scrutiny by the Planning Inspectorate, communities and MHCLG. 

The benefits of more standardised local plans, more consistent evidence bases and so on would merely formalise what has been described as the ‘tick box’ nature of planning. Let's standardise the 80 into more tick boxes so that local planners, citizens and consultants can focus on the more time consuming, human and locally distinctive 20. 

Directing citizen engagement into the right areas

Perhaps the trickiest part of real reform is reviewing and rebalancing the involvement of citizens and government agencies. Before the 1968 Planning Act, citizen engagement wasn’t really a thing. Whilst correlation doesn't equal causation, perhaps some of the post-1970 drop in housing delivery does relate to engaging with the public.

That is not to diminish citizen involvement in planning, but it should be in the right place at the right time. We currently have a system that’s designed to generate the most public engagement where it is least able to have influence, such as regulations, whilst it generates the least interest in the parts that people can have the most impact like plan making. 

The Skeffington report, which heralded citizen engagement in planning, argued that consultation allowed people to hold officials such as councillors and planners to account. It correctly recognised that local knowledge, which might not be available to planners and developers, improves proposals and decisions. Public engagement should aim to build consensus, reduce later conflict and ensure plans align with the long-term interests of communities. But if this were true you would have expected the quality of plans to increase, along with public trust, reduced opposition and legal challenges, and I’m not sure if that has happened…

A more representative planning system does not necessarily mean a consultative democracy. The system needs to be better designed to allow people to influence the things that benefit from local knowledge and empowerment. Too often consultation processes are merely window dressing which ultimately undermines community buy-in and cohesion, meaning citizens are just shouting at clouds and doing everyone a disservice. Being clear about where the public can and should add value, and where they do not, will rebalance the relationship between the public, councils and developers. 

We should have more engagement around the principle of development (local visions, design codes and site selection) and less around applications, where it should be about adherence to policy, methodologies and codes. We could also experiment with citizen assemblies for agreeing housing targets; I’m optimistic about what a representative sample of citizens would think about housing if presented with the evidence that underpins a plan.

Transforming planning requires bold and pragmatic steps that prioritise clarity, consistency, and meaningful citizen engagement. By demystifying processes, standardising routine elements, and focusing public input where it can truly make a difference, we can create a more efficient and transparent framework that will help us hit those housing targets and produce the growth the country and people need. 

Learn more about how we work with the housing and planning sector to streamline delivery and sustainable development, improve services and engage their citizens and customers.