On Friday night I received a text from a senior civil servant. It read, simply: “Holy Moly”. Says it all, really.
So, while we work out how to keep the market going in these extraordinary times (and it is not all bad news – apparently £380m of regional offices and warehouses went under offer last week), EG readers should not overlook two clear signals from the government. The first was that (the ever energetic and ebullient) Stephen Greenhalgh has been appointed to be an “additional, unpaid” housing minister alongside Christopher Pincher. This is to be wholly welcomed by EG readers concerned about pipeline: Mr Greenhalgh is an experienced local authority leader, known to be sympathetic to the development community, and very well placed to hold the hand of any local authority trying to maintain a pro-growth approach in these trying circumstances. And the second was that local authority planners were to be included on the list of essential occupations. These are two great signals of intent.
But just why were planners classified as essential? The woman on the Clapham Omnibus could be forgiven for thinking there’d be no problem if planners didn’t do any work at all for a few months. Are they needed to support the health service? No. Do they deliver essential services required to support people getting food or medication? No. So what’s it all about? Well, it can only mean that as soon as this is all over (or we have a lag between the first and second waves), that government is still hell-bent on fiscal stimulus for anything that looks like economic growth; construction being one of the most obvious targets.
Future view
This is government being rather far sighted, given the general panic. Most other “supply chains” in the economy (from cars to hotels to manufacturing) will be able – at least in theory – to just turn back on. But not the building industry, where one of the biggest lags on the supply chain is the planning process. After all, in “normal” times it’s taken as given that planning takes an inordinate amount of time, and not just the eight or 12-week determination targets (sic) but the whole rigmarole of Local Plans, site allocation, pre apps, and so forth.
So just how do you keep calm and carry on? A number of us are wrestling with this, including the BPF team, all working from home of course. And it would seem that remote working can certainly deal with all the functions in the run-up to getting to committee. One planner I know boasted “I organised a team conference between six parties in three time zones on a slow fibreless location and it worked like a dream”.
So far, so good. But how do we get to an actual decision? Social distancing has already resulted in the cancellation of planning committees across the country. High risk persons are disproportionately represented in planning committees, compared with the rest of the population; most local authority councillors being significantly – ahem – more mature than the average.
So now some of us are proposing that a new extensive model scheme of delegation could be issued by Mr Greenhalgh’s team at MHCLG, which will allow any and all applications to be considered even if no planning committee is sitting. Of course, you say, planning committees could sit by video link or other electronic means. The problem with this is that remote committees cannot confer legally defensible decisions – that would need a change in the law. And parliament itself is struggling to do the basics right now, and these should only be temporary measures in any case.
Ground rules
Such a delegated system will need strict guidelines. And will mean we must prioritise decision making. Planning departments generally deal with applications on the basis of the first come, first served – determination times tend to lead to such an approach. Given the capacity limits – which were already severe – are now compounded by the Covid-19 virus, prioritisation of applications is essential; a sort of triage system if you like, with those applications on brownfield land which conform to the Local Plan (or the emerging Local Plan) taking top priority and those on greenfield sites in contradiction with the Local Plan taking the lowest. This would be entirely in step with the Budget announcements and Planning for the Future. It may mean that more controversial schemes could be delayed. But it would ensure that the show is kept on the road.
The built environment isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a “just in time” supply chain. But it could easily become much more streamlined by embracing new ways of working, including more remote working and, for good measure, more of a digital system. History teaches us that periods of crisis can generate radical ideas that lead to a better way of doing things. Some good for planning could come from all this.
Planners are rightly listed as essential workers. And now Mr Greenhalgh must empower them to do their jobs in this crisis, in line with planning policy.
Jackie Sadek is chief operating officer at UK Regeneration
