The Big Question on… planning: Is a democratic planning system good for politics?

People are disillusioned with the planning system and what it offers for a better quality urban environment. The core problem is that the current system relies too heavily on promoting market-led property development and then trying to get a share of the development profits to deliver social and environmental benefits. This can work in some locations provided market demand is buoyant and the planning system is allowed to regulate and then negotiate to get a good share of profits, so-called ‘planning gain’. But in many places across the country market demand is not buoyant and local planners and politicians are concerned about development going to other areas. Furthermore the Coalition Government have encouraged a programme of deregulation, further weakening the ability of the planning system to negotiate with developers. The provision of affordable housing within new developments has been particularly badly hit by this. Developers can now go back to renegotiate reduced amounts of affordable housing, arguing that economic circumstances have changed; and lack of transparency around development profitability makes it difficult for local planners to counter such arguments.

The planning system needs to put well-being not economic growth back as its core purpose. This means that planners can aim at delivering policies for strong city and regional economies but also plan for equity in a fairer society and a transition to an environmentally sustainable future through reductions in carbon emissions, adaptation to climate change and waste-less use of natural resources. These goals need to be written into the National Planning Policy Framework, rather than the current presumption in favour of development and the emphasis on underpinning the commercial viability of projects.

If planning is reoriented in this way, then it will follow that more people will wish to get involved in planning debates. At present public participation is limited by poor practice and limited resources for engaging with communities but it is also constrained by the views of many people that there is no point in getting involved – their opinions will not be heard and improvements in their local environments will not result. A planning system that is addressing key concerns of local communities – and not just promoting developments – will be seen as much more relevant. If a changed planning agenda is combined with better means of engaging with people – creative participatory exercises, use of social media and local meeting points, attention to the needs of diverse communities, effective ways of resolving disputes – then planning can become more democratic.

This is significant not just for the planning system. Planning is one of the key areas where people encounter local government. Its failure is the failure of local democracy; its loss of legitimacy is the loss of legitimacy of the democratic system. If planning can be made more responsive and accountable to local communities and is seen as more relevant to people’s everyday concerns, then this can only be to the benefit of our broader democracy.

Yvonne Rydin, Bartlett School of Planning, UCL

---

Five Radical Ideas for a Better Planning System

UCL’s Big Questions sought contributions from academics around UCL to address the ‘big question’ facing the next UK government, and how research can provide an evidence base. It was devised by Clio Heslop (UCL Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy) and Olivia Stevenson (UCL Public Policy), with the support of the Communications and Marketing team.

Have your say on the big questions by tweeting using #UCLGE2015, by leaving a blog comment, or by contacting the organisers.

Please join us on 27 May for the UCL’s Big Question Time event.