Future direction of planning reform

Hazel Blears MP says that the planning process must reflect twenty-first century realities and support high-quality design.

"A public realm where we come together as equals...and a green and growing country"
Hazel Blears MP

In a speech at CABE, Hazel Blears said that the planning process must change to reflect twenty-first century realities and become more supportive of high-quality design, more democratic and greener. In the same speech, the Communities Secretary announced a review to cut the red tape in the planning application process.

Introduction

It's a pleasure to be here at CABE and celebrate your vital work.

I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today about planning, design, architecture and public space.

Some of the most potent and popular local campaigns I have ever encountered have focussed on the urban landscape and architectural heritage - whether it's saving a much-loved historic local swimming pool, redesigning an estate to get rid of drugs and crime, or building new properties for young people.

The huge success of TV programmes like Restoration and Grand Designs only underline how much people care about the issues you deal in.

Because the simple fact is, the buildings around us have a profound and enduring effect on our quality of life.

Thinkers and politicians of both left and right have long recognised this.

Our built environment is never merely functional or utilitarian, but an expression of the values we hold dear, the kind of society we are and aspire to be.

Churchill said: "We shape our buildings; thereafter, they shape us."

Antony Crosland, in his book "the Future of Socialism", called for public places which would not just serve the people who used them, but inspire and delight:

"[we need] more open-air cafes, brighter and gayer streets at night… more riverside cafes, more pleasure gardens… more murals and pictures in public places … statues in the centre of new housing estates …"

And more recently thinkers such as David Marquand have called for a renewed public realm, expressed in public institutions and buildings as well as in the ethos of those who work in them. He wanted "[a public realm which] has its own distinctive culture - a culture of citizenship and equity" - and where we come together as equals.

Planning matters

Planning matters because it is the means by which we achieve those aims.

It is how we avoid making places distorted by individualism and greed, and encourage towns and communities shaped by an ideal of the common good.

The first moves towards the modern planning system were cries against the free-for-all jerrybuilding that threw up Victorian slums and factories - poorly designed, unsuitable for the people who lived and worked there, unsympathetic to the surroundings they occupied.

No less a figure than Ruskin formulated the principles of the greenbelt - what he rather more poetically called "a sacred pomoerium with garlands of gardens, tall blossoming trees, and softly flowing streams."

And with pioneer towns like Letchworth Garden City showing how powerful and positive planned development could be, it gradually developed from being the exclusive interest of a small circle of intellectuals to a widely recognised public good.

As the country prepared to build new jobs and homes for a war-weary country, it was Attlee's Government, with the likes of Morrison and Bevan in its ranks, who created a system to balance social, economic and environmental objectives that has proved remarkably durable in its essentials.

It is a framework that curtails unbridled selfishness and individualism, promoting planned development in the wider interest.

But equally it is no straitjacket such as led to the arid, sterile forms of the Stalinist city. British planning leaves room for entrepreneurial drive, historical charm, innovation and character.

And as such, it is a legacy admired and emulated the world over.

New challenges today

But there are new challenges today.

It is vital to equip planning to rise to those challenges - global warming, the global economy, a technological revolution, and the evolving needs - including for homes and green power - of a green and growing country.

But this is not about throwing away a heritage we can be rightly proud of.

It is, instead, about reaffirming the central role of planning in shaping all our communities, while recognising that those communities have changed in ways and to an extent that the architects of the current planning framework could not have imagined.

I could not agree less with those, such as Simon Jenkins, who predict the imminent demise of planning.

Rather, I believe if we were to leave the system unchanged it would be unable to do the very job it was designed for. Let's not forget that there have been 20 major reforms since the 1947 Act - underlining that adaptation is the key to keeping planning relevant and up-to-date.

That's why it is so important that different aspects of our planning framework are already being transformed to reflect twenty-first century realities.

The Planning Bill before parliament sets out reforms to clarify and streamline the process for planning nationally significant infrastructure - from new sources of power to reservoirs - while making it easier for people to effectively influence the process - because the mishmash of consent regimes and legislation currently in operation is creaking at the seams, leaving too many people disconnected from decisions with a big impact on their lives, and very often delivering stalemate that is of precious little benefit to anyone.

Planners everywhere are making the most of new technologies. As of next month a single standard planning application form will be going national, through the web-based Planning Portal that gives people an easy, single place to go when they want to learn about planned changes to their area.

And we've made big strides forward in promoting the vibrant, vital town centres of which people are rightly proud. There is more retail development in and around town centres today than at any point in the last ten years. But 60% still takes place out of town. That's why I'm committed to refining and strengthening our "town centre first" policy, and will publish detailed proposals for consultation shortly. As part of that consultation, we'll also be keen to hear reaction to the Competition Commission's draft proposals that a "competition test" should be introduced into the planning system to promote more competition between supermarkets.

So - a better process for planning major infrastructure, the rise of e-planning, better support for town centres. These are all positive steps.

But I also want to set out what I see as some of the fundamental principles if planning is to continue to flourish in the twenty-first century.

I believe it must be more democratic: greener: and more supportive of high-quality design.

More democratic

First, as it evolves, planning needs to become accessible, more transparent, and more democratic.

It can't be right that so often the processes for making decisions that shape towns and neighbourhoods don't engage the people intimately affected by them.

That's why we are putting engagement at the heart of major infrastructure proposals, with opportunities for early and meaningful consultation at all three stages - during the formulation of national policy, as the developer prepares a proposal, and at the inquiry stage.

And as we look to further improve town and country planning, with a start-to-finish review of how the application process works in practice to be led by Joanna Killian and David Pretty in the coming months, we have to keep the same principle in mind. We need to make sure that making the system more efficient doesn't mean squeezing the ability of people to have a say. These ideas don't have to be, and shouldn't be, in conflict - you can make a system more efficient and engaging at the same time.

Now in my experience, including as a former lawyer for Salford council, local planning inquiries often generate a lot of interest and debate.

But what about the discussion of the documents that set the framework for that inquiry - the local and regional development plans? Aren't they all too often driven by a handful of officials and professionals with precious little connection to local people?

I think there is an opportunity today to plug people back in to plan-making. The Sub-National Review proposed replacing a myriad of strategies with a single regional strategy. This will make it clearer and easier for people to comment.

But on its own that won't make the change we need to see. There's a challenge for local plan-makers too. Any profession needs its own lexicon of specialist terms: a shorthand of concepts and technical definitions. But mention place shaping, plan-making, or spatial dimension to the general public, and you risk sending them to sleep. As well as technical skills, it's vital to be able to explain what you're about in straightforward language.

It's important to frame the debate in a way that people can understand and engage with - do you want to see a new park by the new housing estate, or leave it as open fields? Keep two small existing recycling centres, or make one big new centre? Cover over the shopping arcade in the high street or leave it open?

The brilliant website communityplanning.net sets out clear advice on a whole range of ways you can get people involved - using everything from models, to photos, to computer maps to show what development could look like.

It also gives advice on how to encourage a positive, realistic debate - one where everyone accepts in good faith the purpose and boundaries of discussion. One where people recognise that the purpose of planning is to enable and support the right type of development, not to stop it nor prevaricate endlessly like a modern-day Jarndyce v Jarndyce. And one that gives you something more mature than protestors simply repeating "no" or developers saying "like it or lump it." You've got to have a proper dialogue.

The other big challenge here, I think, is to get to get away from comment being the preserve of the pressure group, or the best-equipped and best-resourced - the Margot Leadbetters and Lynda Snells of this world.
Ordinary local people need a proper say. So I'm pleased to confirm a boost to Planning Aid that will help them find a voice. Our total support for Planning Aid will rise to £3.2m for the coming financial year - a boost of £1.5m - with more to come over the next two years. I hope this will help Planning Aid develop new and stronger partnerships with other organisations who help people have a say.

Greener

The second key principle for the future of planning is that it has got to be greener. We all understand the scale of the challenge with climate change, its potentially devastating impacts, and that the long-term cost of inaction far outweighs the short-term cost of taking positive steps now.

That is why we published a new Planning Policy Statement on climate change in the run up to Christmas.

It made clear that thinking about climate change shouldn't be an add-on, but an integral part of the way we build towns and cities.

New homes, jobs and infrastructure need to be planned in ways that cut carbon emissions: but that also help us adjust to expected changes in our climate.

Planning should deliver the right development in the right place, with sustainable transport, so we won't need to travel as much. It should encourage greater use of local renewable or low-carbon energy sources. And it should make sure we see more planners incorporating things like urban cooling - green spaces to keep cities cool in summer - and high-quality drainage, so they can cope with heavy rainfall.

The challenge now is to translate that planning policy statement into practice on the ground.

That is why we asked the consultants ERM and Faber Maunsell to develop practice guidance to help planners. And I am pleased that they are today publishing a working draft of this guidance.

It's not meant to be the last word: rather, it starts an important dialogue. I want planners everywhere to contribute so we can together develop clear and authoritative guidance on the practical ways of revolutionising how we plan for a low-carbon future. Because if we have led the world in terms of ambition with our zero-carbon homes target, and with our targets for non-domestic buildings, we need to lead the world in terms of know-how and expertise too.

I have no doubt that you in CABE will have a lot to contribute, given good practice you are already encouraging - with your Sustainable Urban Design Manual. And your regional sustainable cities events, including your climate change festival in Birmingham, are a great opportunity to get people thinking creatively.

High-quality design

My third principle for the future is that is absolutely vital for our planning system support high-quality design.

People deserve homes, office and public spaces that are not brutal, but beautiful. New developments that respect what is witty, noble, quirky, unique about their surroundings, rather than overpowering or obliterating it.

This is already a very clear part of Government policy. Planning Policy Statements - if we're being specific, one and three - spell it out.

But the solution isn't about putting a few words in a Whitehall document here or there. It's about changing minds, changing culture in planning authorities.

As we look to build 3m new homes by 2020, good design has never been more important. Caroline Flint has made clear - by paraphrasing Nye Bevan - that in the long term, we will be judged not on the quantity, but the quality.

It's apposite that this is the 60th anniversary of the Housing Design Awards, showing how modern design, material and techniques can make beautiful, green and affordable places to live. Places that bring together the physical and the social: not just great buildings, but high-quality services - schools, hospitals, low-carbon public transport - to meet the needs of people that live in them.

And it's why the work that you do here in CABE is vital, supporting those who infuse their plans with a commitment to design quality, questioning and challenging those who don't.

I recognise that this isn't always easy. It requires a leap of faith. It isn't about technical detail or processes, but vision and ambition.

But I think it's exactly the kind of thing that the public realm should aspire to.

The best public art and design is a catalyst for investment, a symbol of civic pride. The Angel of the North is synonymous with the renaissance of the North-East, driven by the creative industries. Today, it's hard to imagine the London skyline without the Eye.

And there's no reason the functional and municipal can't be elevated by good design to what I've heard called "something rarefied and pleasurable" - such as the wonderful Ironmonger Row Baths in Islington, the Imperial War Museum North, or Peckham Library.

Or take that most controversial of public projects, the Millennium Dome, much maligned and much mocked at the time. Today, as the O2 centre, it's increasingly recognised as a brilliant venue and, love it or hate it, as a design icon.

So why shouldn't today's airport terminals be as beautiful as St Pancras?

Why can't we make the new buildings around us - from homes, to schools, to bus stops - inspiring as well as functional?

And why can't we make the new towns we build in the coming years a beacon for the rest of the world?

Conclusion

What I'm saying is that the work you do - CABE, developers, planners regional and local - is vital: helping protect green spaces, planning homes where people want to live and raise a family, creating public spaces that reinforce civic pride.

You can create a legacy with the potential to be every bit as profound and enduring as the Victorians' - and perhaps go one step further, by adding an element of fun as well.

It's a wonderful opportunity and a heavy responsibility.

So I look forward to working with you more closely in the months to come.