Roundtable: Time for momentum on ambitious local plan making

Stability and certainty breed confidence

Any strategy needs to make predictions about the future—and it’s hard to do that when things are changing so quickly. It’s no surprise that uncertainty about national planning policy and wider reforms was mentioned by the panellists. It’s a common concern of local planning authorities and a reason for delays to local plan making.  

Councils are facing critical financial and resource constraints. As such, they are hesitant to invest in the time-intensive local plan making process if there is a risk that national policy will shift.

It’s welcome that one of the main aims of the updated NPPF is to create a more stable system that provides clearer guidance on development. The aim is to promote more consistent and efficient decision making.  

From clarity over housing and economic needs, to the approach to Green Belt and Grey Belt, the goal from central government is to move away from an adversarial system to one which is genuinely supportive of plan-led growth. In other words, it’s not about if but how.  

Local plan making should be a creative and agile process

Local authorities need to regularly review local plans. This is to make sure they are aligned to present and future needs, especially as they relate to the context of both clear social inequalities and economic opportunities. They need to look at housing, jobs, and connectivity, while also thinking about the provision of critical utilities and community infrastructure.

So, when is the right time to review all these things?  

Views around the table were both ‘never’ and ‘always’. We live in a rapidly changing world, so wait for the perfect moment and you’ll be waiting forever.

In an age of data, and with smarter ways to build an evidence case, local planning authorities are right to make strategic planning an iterative and never-ending process. This is similar to the thinking laid out in a vision-and-validate approach. There was also consensus that authorities should use the local plan review process to inform wider corporate objectives.   

Councils need to be on the front foot—collecting data and actively engaging with communities—so they have the evidence needed to act when local plans are due for review. Supplementary policies, such as Local Development Schemes (LDSs), can help provide a clear framework when it comes to local plan making.

Some offered that planning authorities need to look at skills in their workforce more broadly. Where possible, they should look to spread the weight across departments. This way, they can draw on not just planning expertise but also input from other specialists such as those working in environmental services, education and highways—as well as from the private sector.

Statutory consultees need to be on the same page. And alignment between public bodies and the government’s pro-development growth agenda is key. Engaging early in the local plan making process will help authorities and statutory consultees to work together. The end result will bring forward a plan that meets the ambitions of both.

Likewise, it’s important to have open conversations with the neighbouring authorities. It will encourage a better understanding of strategic priorities and opportunities for collaboration. That could be in the form of a future joint plan or regular dialogue over potential cross-boundary matters. This is doubly important as devolution goes deeper and expands across the whole of England.  

Local plans aren’t the answer to everything—pragmatism and proactivity can help maintain market confidence and delivery

Local government representatives told us about the struggles that councils face when having to work constructively within a plan-led system, without having a local plan in place.

While the ambition for every authority to have an up-to-date local plan is positive, there will always be transitionary periods when plans become out of date. Or times when it’s key to look at existing and emerging policy together. This is expected to be the case through 2025 and beyond.

Authorities need to keep engaging with developers and landowners. And they must work with  organisations like the Planning Inspectorate and the Planning Advisory Service. Together they can explore how to bring forward schemes in parallel—and potentially in advance of—emerging local plans. This will allow authorities to maintain some control over what is being built and where.

Fostering strong local leadership

As it stands, nearly a third of councils in England (31 percent) hold elections ‘by thirds’—meaning one in three members are up for election in three of every four years. Many in the group felt this can lead to overpoliticisation of the local plan making process and slow things down. This leads to a significant period of time each year when major decisions are paused.  

Moving towards an ‘all-out’ election cycle, where all councillors are voted in every four years, would likely give councils more time to formulate policy. It would allow leaders to focus on longer-term considerations over just the immediate pressure of elections.  

Creating this greater stability in councils would also mean planning departments could better support wider corporate strategies. In turn, that would help tie local plan making more closely to social, environmental, and economic objectives.

Carrots and sticks to get things moving

We also talked about incentives in the system and motivations to act. Both ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ have their place and purpose in local plan making.

The challenges that come with not having an up-to-date plan are well recognised. Without one, authorities are at risk of losing control. The government’s intention to take a more interventionalist approach towards authorities that don’t swing into action means the risks are greater than ever.  

We also discussed how to support local planning authorities. From a financial perspective, we talked about replacing the New Homes Bonus—and how to do so. And we discussed how to reward the authorities that take a proactive approach to local plan making.

Another topic: Tighter ringfencing of income generated by planning departments. There is a challenge of retaining cash in planning teams when other frontline services are in high demand. That is something to consider in the context of wider reform and funding for local government.

The best laid plans oft go awry

The government’s intentions on development and growth are bold. Its targets should motivate the industry and stretch our ambitions. That’s commendable. And we all need to take on responsibility for driving delivery and supporting the national growth mission.

Our attendees felt that clearer expectations from government would create greater confidence in the local plan making process. At the same time, perspectives from the ‘coalface’—both from planning departments and applicants—brought a useful dose of realism to the conversation. Fundamentally, good planning is about balancing interests and taking decisions that are often imperfect but ought to be well-informed. 

Here are some common themes that ran throughout the discussion:

• The need for flexibility.
• Pragmatism.
• Close coordination between public and private sectors.
• Greater transparency on how decisions are made.

This is what we need to focus on in the years ahead to achieve universal plan coverage and, more importantly, to create a system that enables the type of development our country needs.

Attendees:

Joanna Averley, chief planner, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Simon Berkeley, head of local plans, Planning Inspectorate

Warren Lever, principal spatial planner, Hampshire County Council

Christine Lyons, executive director growth and partnerships, Basildon Borough Council

Georgina Pacey, planning policy and climate change manager, Runnymede Borough Council

Anna Rose, head of the Planning Advisory Service

Sam Stafford, planning director, Home Builders Federation

John Tarvit, head of planning, Wates

Tim Thomas, head of Transport, Infrastructure and Policy Planning, Be First – London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

Cllr Richard Wright, leader of North Kesteven District Council and Planning Spokesperson of the District Councils Network

Roger Evans, director, Stantec

Michelle Robinson, associate director, Stantec

Chair: Michael Knott, director, Stantec