By The Harlow Civic Society

THE government white paper ‘Planning for the Future’ was published on August 6^th 2020. Its stated aim is to make the planning system for development ‘simpler, faster and more predictable’.

Ambitiously it declares that there needs to be ‘wholesale reform of the system’, eliminating piecemeal changes and complexity.

The publication Civic Voice considered the proposed changes, and Harlow Civic Society has formulated a response after looking at this as well as the original white paper.

HCS decided that, although the current regulations need updating, there is no need for the wholesale changes set out in the document which seem intent on making things easy for developers to put up substandard houses on unsuitable sites with the minimum of public consultation.

There will be ‘a streamlined and faster development management process’; automatic online permission for development in ‘growth areas’, automatic consent for ‘renewal areas’, where design standards etc are met. No public consultation or planning authority approval would be needed. We do not support automatic permission for developments. It is essential that democratic oversight and public consultation are maintained.

HCS approves of greater use of digital technology, but it is not possible for all routine processes to be automated. Not everyone has access to advanced technology. The document advocates a streamlined Local Plan process, limiting the time for adoption to 30 months. We support this in principle, but a 30 month review is insufficient, and there is not enough time for public consultation.

The document also speaks enthusiastically of High Quality Design and a ‘Fast Track to Beauty’. This is meaningless in our view. We support the production of improved  design standards, but not the proliferation of developments  previously considered unacceptable. Design codes must include light and space standards etc. We also support requirements to address climate change, but these are mandatory now anyway. We question the use of the term ‘Beauty’. The government cannot decide for us that a development is ‘beautiful’.

The final section ‘Conserving and advancing the historic environment’ is too vague and lacks detail. It might exclude democratic oversight.

 Overall we are disappointed by this document, which favours an extension of government powers to develop at will, without democratic oversight and consultation, overturning accepted standards in favour of high density housing.

Comments

Nicholas Taylor

Another nail in the coffin for local democracy put forward by the Conservative Government, added to the proposal that groups of councils are merged into one single entity. 

Whilst most of those involved in the planning system acknowledge that some changes need to be made, the proposals now set out will reduce consultation to almost zero, they are vague in respect of standards and will lead to developments which in years to come will be seen as eyesores just as many of the buildings built in the 1960’s have.

There are a huge numbers of places across the country where planning permission has been given, but work to build homes etc has not started. The land or buildings often stand empty for many years (the former Motor Sales site and The Square to name just two) where developers sit on their investment waiting for house prices to rise. Such delays far out way any time an applicant has to wait for planning permission.