UK Planning Reform and the Art of Covert Legacy Building During Crises
I don’t need to tell you that a lot is happening right now. There’s an endless tirade of current affairs demanding our attention, and rightfully so. Black Lives Matter, COVID-19, Climate Change, and the persecution of Uighurs in China are just some of the critical issues we all need to keep track of right now, lest history judges us poorly.
Unsurprisingly, there’s a common thread running through many of these issues in that they are all hugely connected to governments, from local to global, who play a key role in both causing these issues and solving them (no matter how utterly inept they may be in doing so).
In some cases, governments can only be accused of inaction, but in many, many other situations the government is the main culprit. One of Black Lives Matter’s main objectives is to fundamentally reshape police departments, key government actors across the US, to hold their historical and contemporary institutional racism to account. In China, Uighurs are being horrifically punished just for being Muslim due to the extreme secular values of the ruling communist party. These issues have now achieved greater awareness because more people are finally appraising the malicious role of politics and government in creating them.
Governments matter. They are arguably the most important player dictating what is allowed to occur in the world around us. Unsurprisingly, they also rather like having this power, and governments are incredibly fond of building lasting legacies on the nation so that they can boast about their achievements until the end of their days.
The UK government is no exception, but given the increasing volume of scrutiny being placed upon them, any legacy building they can covertly get away with is a godsend. This is precisely what they’re doing with the very system by which the UK manages its space; public planning.
Recently, Boris Johnson announced a radical plan to rework the entire UK planning system, a move which would represent its largest shakeup since World War 2, to promote a wide range of developments including schools, hospitals, and new housing. He justified this by saying that it would help kickstart the economy and accelerate post-COVID recovery.
Now, I’m not debating whether building new hospitals is a bad idea, but the way that the government is conducting these reforms could be disastrous in a myriad of ways. Furthermore, the issue has also unsurprisingly snuck under the radar for many people given the monumental amount of history-making events going on. Nevertheless, I hope that by the end of this piece you’ll be able to see just some of the ways this reform could be a disaster and why we should keep a critical eye on its progress.
The Abolishment of Local Plans
One of the main changes proposed in this consultation is the abolishment of Local Plans in favour of a US-style zoning system. Effectively, this would mean that as long as the housing estate, hospital, school, or business park you want to build meets all of the arbitrary requirements of said zoning document, it would be given the automatic go-ahead.
This appears to be a direct pushback against the ‘meddling’ powers local plans have currently to challenge developers to get the best possible outcome for their communities. I know that this seems like a plotline I’ve ripped from an 80s kids film, but these stories unfold all the time, across the world, a recent prominent example of which being the resistance to the Silvertown road tunnel in London.
Regardless, this proposed abolishment may be completely unnecessary, as a recent report found that almost all of the groups involved in working with local plans rather like them as they enable the aspirations of the community to be considered in planning. However, they do raise several concerns and areas of improvement, mainly originating from a lack of resources being available from the government to maximise their effectiveness.
You would think then that the easy option would be to increase support for these plans. Alas, enabling effective local governance has never been the Conservatives forte, and this apparent erosion of a key avenue of public participation is just a small portion of a much larger scheme by the government to stamp their authority on planning.
Three Simple Zones
One of the main ways the government has gone about their overall legacy building is by acting like a GCSE English student who’s just discovered the rule of three and is now wedging it into every single situation they can.
It all started with ‘Stay at home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives’, which then moulded into the much more questionable ‘Stay Alert, Control the Virus, Save Lives’. These reforms are no exception, with their main tagline being ‘Build, Build, Build’, which must have been the only words the cabinet could conceive of when most of them were down with COVID.
Even the proposed new zones come in another neat trifecta; Growth, Renewal, and Protection, with each of them holding their own similarly superficial descriptions. Growth zones would be spaces where most developments would be given automatic permission. Renewal zones would be largely the same, subject to a few more checks where a building needs to be demolished, for instance. Protection zones would be the only parcels of land where most developments are not allowed, which would include conservation zones such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs).
Now, as much as the government would love planning to be as simple as assigning a three-word slogan to some new zones and calling it a day, it isn’t, and this absurd oversimplification could be awful for the environment.
Crucially, they’re assuming that ‘valuable’ nature only resides in currently designated conservation areas, where in reality no animal or plant gives a toss about these arbitrary lines in the sand and may very well live quite happily in a growth zone, future site of a new business park near you.
As they are presented currently, these reforms are likely to further box nature into designated areas where our gracious government mercifully allows it to exist, whilst paving over the rest because it doesn’t meet an economic bottom-line. To paraphrase the Wildlife Trust’s Nikki Williams, the UK is already severely nature depleted, and these reforms will do nothing but worsen this fact.
Environmental Assessment — The Fine Print
The final point I wanted to make concerns one of the fine print sections of their consultation, which refers to the future of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t know what that is, because I find that it’s not publicised very well. In essence, it’s a document that identifies the potential environmental impacts of a development and designs strategies to help reduce them. This process is incredibly important, as not only has it been around in the UK for a long time, but it’s also one of the best methods of ensuring that environmental concerns get a seat at the table in planning.
However, EIA has several weaknesses currently, which can make them somewhat ineffective. One particularly interesting characteristic is that developers are often so petrified of any legal challenge that they insist that their assessment covers every theme under the sun, even some factors that aren’t relevant in the slightest.
A hypothetical example would be a report addressing the impacts of a new housing estate on a well-loved beach, when the nearest beach is 20 miles away and the estate is made up of just 15 homes.
In this case, the estate is too far away and unlikely to cause any significant impacts at all, yet they’ll cover it anyway, just in case someone decides to hold them to account. Not only is this a waste of time and money, but also significantly bloats EIA reports, rendering them largely incapable environmental governance tools.
Another more concerning issue is following up after the EIA is complete. Usually, an EIA will recommend that an issue be addressed over time, and so it would make sense to have a protocol for ensuring that this is happening. Yet, it’s all too common for councils to take developers at their word when they say they’re absolutely, definitely, 100% conducting repeat bat surveys, for example, without actually sending anyone out to check on them.
Unsurprisingly, much of these faults can be said to be caused by a lack of guidance and monetary resources from the government. Yet, as expected by now, they’re unlikely to supply this anytime soon. Instead, these planning reforms refer to a new consultation to be published in the autumn which seeks to review the role of EIA in planning. Considering what could happen to Local Plans, EIA may be the next mechanism to be put to the sword.
Keeping an eye on things
Overall, I think it’s fair to say that this legacy that the government is trying to build is incredibly concerning for both the environment and local government. Yet, perhaps even more alarming is the seeming lack of public engagement with the issue.
Of course, I completely understand why. Planning is not known for being a particularly enthralling subject, and it’s quite hard to pay any attention to it given that much of the world has either just been in crisis, is going through a crisis right now, or will almost certainly be in crisis in the future.
Yet, I think this is a subject that the public needs to be much more aware of, because the government is largely getting away with it, benefitting from the consultation being buried under a mountain of other issues. Additionally, whilst the current government may desire some grand legacy building, they are also prone to making some daringly abrupt u-turns if placed under enough pressure. If we can muster some greater attention, we can force another one.
With that in mind, I would encourage anyone reading this to read up on the reforms and its critiques. If you think it’s a serious issue, then please act on it and get involved with the consultation online here, and boost it’s publicity wherever you can.
I know that this is yet another dilemma that we need to pay attention to, but if we do nothing the reforms will be much more likely to pass. If we manifest some anger now, we could stop the government from stamping this pro-developer legacy on our space. All we need to do is multitask on our awareness and not let them get away with this covert reform without our say-so.
