The Big Question: When will government realise that regulation is not a dirty word?

In an oft-quoted speech made to the Welsh Conservative Conference in March 2011, UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced:

“We are taking on the enemies of enterprise. The bureaucrats in government departments who concoct those ridiculous rules and regulations that make life impossible for small firms. The town hall officials who take forever to make those planning decisions that can be make or break for a business – and the investment and jobs that go with it.”

Although subsequent speeches from government Ministers about the planning system avoided quite the same level of rhetoric, the attitude encapsulated within it does seem to reflect the actions of the current UK government towards regulation and our planning system.

Recent years have seen regulation become somewhat of a dirty word for central government, with a broad emphasis being placed on trimming back rules, ‘red tape’ and any perceived ‘barriers to growth’ or ‘enterprise’. In my book, The Collaborating Planner?, I explore how this fits a wider trend under the ‘New Public Management’ to make public services more concerned with notions of ‘efficiency’ and orientation toward the private sector.

However, such an approach fails, to fully capture what the public sector more broadly, and planning specifically, should be about.  Alongside notions of ‘efficiency’, the public sector must also be about access, justice, democracy, fairness, and ensuring due process is followed to support some notion of wider public benefit.  Similarly, whilst a good planning system should certainly be proactive and engaging, it also needs to be able to implement policies, prevent harm, control externalities, and maximise social and environmental benefit.  It does this through regulation – the muscle which makes planning work.

The idea that regulation simply needs to be cut back, to get out of the way of entrepreneurs, risks undermining the ability of planning to protect and enhance our built and natural environment.  The increase in permitted development rights (i.e. the removal of the need to apply for planning permission) to convert office buildings to residential use in England has been presented as the solution to our housing crisis. Yet the relaxation of regulation has had a number of detrimental consequences, including established businesses being evicted to, and live music venues threatened by noise complaints.

In this case, the relaxation of regulation risks incompatible neighbouring-land uses, undermines the ability of local authorities to deliver proper strategic plans for town centres and even prevents the capture of planning gain contribution payments from developers to fund vital local physical and social infrastructure.  Indeed, the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee has recently called for this relaxation of the use class orders to be revoked.

Regulation is an important, and beneficial, function of government.  As a general principle, it is inherently fairer and more transparent that local authorities are able to undertake planning regulation.  The notion that planning is a great barrier to economic growth also seems slightly undermined by the fact that in England last year, 88% of all planning applications were granted permission.  These regulatory costs for applicants are far outweighed by the benefits of planning regulation in ensuring developers meet certain agreed standards and empowering planners to negotiate improvements to schemes for public benefit.

Given this, the argument that “The benefits of planning regulation should be recognised” is one of five radical ideas for the future of planning contained in a recent manifesto published by a number of my colleagues at the UCL Bartlett School of Planning.

Ben Clifford, 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.

In Wheeler, B (2011). ‘David Cameron says enterprise is only hope for growth’ at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12657524 [Last accessed 10.04.15]

Clifford, B and Tewdwr-Jones, M (2013). The Collaborating Planner?: Practitioners in the neoliberal age. Bristol: Policy Press

Allen, K. (2014). ‘Businesses evicted to make way for flats’ at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/811fa360-4e1d-11e4-adfe-00144feab7de.html#axzz3OoQdR0FO [Last accessed 10.04.15] and CSJ Planning (2014). ‘The Fleece, Live Music Venue Threatened by New Permitted Development Rights’ at http://www.csj-planning.co.uk/news/post.php?s=2014-06-30-the-fleece-live-music-venue-threatened-by-new-permitted-development-rights [Last accessed 10.04.15]

UK Parliament (2014). ‘HC 190 House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee:

Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework’ at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcomloc/190/190.pdf [Last accessed 10.04.15]

UK Government (2015). ‘Planning application statistics’ at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-applications-statistics [Last accessed 10.04.15]