Blog: The three P's of planning. By James Norton9th April 2013

William Blake famously wrote that Jerusalem would be ‘builded there in England’s green and pleasant land.’ It is with Blake’s verse in mind, that I am considering the government’s proposals to streamline the planning process. I hope that this article will reveal that planning is about three things - power, personalities and politics.

The UK economy is braced for years of austerity and stagnant growth. Money is tight and our politicians are constantly looking for ways to deliver a massive shot in the arm to our ailing economy. Politicians hope that a streamlined planning process will deliver a boost to the construction industry (which unlike services has been flat on its back) and allow developers to build. However, the bigger economic picture is not without contradictions. The government acknowledges that there is a housing shortage, and therefore, a need for affordable housing. However, it has given greater powers to communities (under the remit of the Localism Act) to decide whether or not development is welcome in their communities. The consequences are obvious. If the government gives you greater powers to decide whether or not a new housing development in your area should be built (on say greenfield land) you may well decide that it’s not welcome in your back yard. The aspirations of local communities and central government are inconsistent.

The government has also proposed changes that would allow offices to be changed into homes without planning permission. However, this does not take into account a local planning authority’s (LPA) article 4 powers. This essentially allows councils to override development. If an LPA can override development, doesn’t that somewhat defeat the purpose of dispensing with planning permission in the first place? The Government states that local authorities will not be able to resist the above unless it would result in a detrimental impact to the local economy (and the negatives of development outweigh the positives). It should be noted, that the city of London has applied for an exemption against office to residential conversions. We shall have to watch this space but, if other cities apply for the same exemption, then the government’s proposals will be self defeating.

Despite the above, there are positives. The Government has cut the national planning guidance from hundreds to some fifty pages. The Law Commission has also published a welcome consultation on rights to light. These rights have long been a bane to many developers (problems with the planning process are not solely focused on applying for permission per se). Developers could face damages or even an injunction if they interfere with a right to light that has been acquired through prescription, such as long use. The Law Commission’s consultation proposes the abolition of prescription, the serving of notices (as to whether or not the right to light will be exercised) and allowing the upper chamber of the Land Tribunal to abolish obsolete and redundant rights to light easements (as is already the case with restrictive covenants). If the proposals are enacted, they will provide welcome clarity and relief to many developers. This will allow developers to build without the fear of interfering with someone’s right to light.

In conclusion, the planning process (as stated above) is focused on the three P’s- power, personalities and politics. At it’s heart is conflict between LPAs, local communities, campaign groups, developers, central and local government, business etc. Not quite the harmonius vision of Jerusalem envisaged by Blake.
 

About the author

James Norton is a paralegal at a top 100 firm and an aspiring lawyer with a passion for commercial property law. He writes a regular blog on the latest legal (and other) developments in commercial property law at: http://proplawyer.blogspot.co.uk/