In August 2020 the Government published the ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper, setting out the proposed changes to the current planning system in the UK. The Paper promised “radical reform… unlike anything we’ve seen since the second world war” and sought to sought to address the piecemeal planning reforms we have experienced over recent decades. But what did the paper propose? Well, in short, the Paper sought increased digitalisation of the planning system, sanctionable deadlines for local authorities and the automatic granting of Outline or Permission in Principle through the Local Plan by allocating land into Growth, Renewal or Protected Areas. The Paper received mixed responses, with some notable figures such as Dr. Andreas Schulze Baing, Dr. Brian Webb and Emma Dring suggesting the proposed changes left open the possibility of a move to a more regulatory planning system in the UK.

The UK is almost exclusive globally in its use of a discretionary planning system, which places emphasis on the planning application process and the consideration of each application on its individual merits. This is different to countries with a regulatory system, such as the U.S.A, where the emphasis is placed on the plan making stage, where clear rules around what development is permitted are established, often removing the need to apply for development where it accords with the plan. The publication of the White Paper has sparked new debate as to whether a more regulatory system could be effective within the UK and as such inspired my dissertation subject.

The dissertation undertakes a thorough review of the chances proposed within the White Paper, identifying those suggestions which would normally be aligned to a regulatory approach. Following the review, the study explored the regulatory planning system found within America and the ‘hybrid’ system used in Australia. To inform the research, video interviews were held with planners based in, or with experience of, the American planning system, finding some interesting differences between not only the processes but also the ideologies of those working in the different systems.

The study found that what is considered to characterise an effective planning system is subjective globally, with some placing greater importance on planner ability to advocate for important issues, and others finding efficiency and speed to be more important. The dissertation concludes that the White Paper was premature and required further consultation with those directly and indirectly involved in the planning system to identify effective reforms.

Following the submission of the dissertation it was announced that the Government would be placing the White Paper on hold, whilst it reconsidered the changes proposed. The Paper received significant backlash through the consultation responses, with many feeling the changes would take the power out of the hands of local communities. A poll by the Built Environment Communications Group in September 2020 found that only 4% of councillors felt the changes would result in a more democratic planning system. More recently in June 2021 the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee warned in a report that the proposed changes were “reckless” and opposed the intention to remove an individual’s ability to comment on individual proposals.

So, what happens now for planning reform? Well, the Rt Hon. Michael Gove has replaced the former Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, and the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government renamed the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We are still awaiting a revised approach to reforming the planning system, which remains in much the same position as before the publication of the White Paper.

Please click the link below to read the full dissertation, which achieved a merit.