Comment

Strategic planning: A new hope

Senior Director Mike Best explores what the NPPF consultation might mean for strategic planning.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away…..

Fans of Stars Wars will know there are nine films in three trilogies. Those of us old enough to have been involved in strategic planning before probably remember the first one in 1977. There are as many episodes in strategic planning’s back catalogue and the titles of the films seem appropriate, if not quite in chronological order, as a guide.

The late 1980s was when the ‘Force Awakens’. After the abolition of the Metropolitan Counties, the Government published Strategic Planning Guidance for the local authorities in those areas. As this evolved in the early ‘90s into Regional Planning Guidance for all ten regions, we saw the ‘Return of the Jedi’ as planners who had cut their teeth on early Structure Plans and sub-regional studies found their stars and their esoteric skills in the ascendency. 

By the early 2000s, the ‘Rise of Skywalker’ saw the culmination of legislative change which introduced the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), followed quickly by an ‘Attack of the Clones’, as local authorities and their communities resisted the imposition of regional housing targets.

Then came the ‘Phantom Menace’ in the shape of Eric Pickles and the ‘Empire Strikes Back’ as RSS was abolished. After 14 years, we are down to the ‘Last Jedi’ - there are virtually no strategic planners left with experience of the ‘old ways’.

But 2024 brings ‘A New Hope’ as Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner announced to the Commons at the end of July that the Government would take the steps needed for universal coverage of strategic planning within this Parliament.

So, what might universal coverage look like in our little corner of the galaxy?

In his letter of 30 July to housing industry stakeholders, the Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook said “we know…that, whilst planning at the local authority level is critical, it is not enough to deliver the growth we want to see. That is why our manifesto was clear that housing need in England cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale, and that it will be necessary to introduce effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning”.

He went on to promise “universal coverage within this Parliament, which we will formalise in legislation. This model will support elected Mayors in overseeing the development and agreement of Spatial Development Strategies (SDS) for their areas. The Government will also explore the most effective arrangements for developing SDSs outside of mayoral areas, in order that we can achieve universal coverage in England, recognising that we will need to consider both the appropriate geographies to use to cover functional economic areas, and the right democratic mechanisms for securing agreement”.

Furthermore, “these arrangements will encourage partnership working but we are determined to ensure that, whatever the circumstances, SDSs can be concluded and adopted. The Government will work with local leaders and the wider sector to consult on, develop and test these arrangements in the months ahead before legislation is introduced, including consideration of the capacity and capabilities needed such as geospatial data and digital tools”.

The letter sets out three immediate steps:

1. As the ‘duty to co-operate’ will continue under the current system before its revoking through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, the NPPF will be strengthened on co-operation between authorities to ensure that “the right engagement is occurring on the sharing of unmet housing need and other strategic issues where plans are being progressed in the short term”;
2. The Government will work in concert with Mayoral Combined Authorities to explore extending existing powers to develop an SDS; and
3. They will identify “priority groupings” of other authorities where strategic planning, and, in particular, the sharing of housing need, would provide particular benefits, and engage directly with the authorities concerned to structure and support this co-operation using powers of intervention as and where necessary.

Effective co-operation

The main change in relation to strategic planning in the revised NPPF is in the section on Maintaining Effective Co-operation on plan-making.

A proposed addition to paragraph 24 states that “effective strategic planning across local planning authority boundaries will play a vital and increasing role in how sustainable growth is delivered and key spatial issues, including meeting housing needs, delivering strategic infrastructure, and building economic and climate resilience, are addressed”.

A new paragraph 27 is also added which is worth setting out in full:

“Once the matters which require collaboration have been identified, strategic policy-making authorities should make sure that their plan policies are consistent with those of other bodies where a strategic relationship exists on these matters, and with the relevant investment plans of infrastructure providers, unless there is a clear justification to the contrary. In particular their plans should ensure that:     

• a consistent approach is taken to planning the delivery of major infrastructure, such as major transport services/projects, utilities, waste, minerals, environmental improvement and resilience, and strategic health, education and social infrastructure (such as hospitals, universities, major schools, major sports facilities and criminal justice accommodation);      
• unmet development needs from neighbouring areas are accommodated in accordance with paragraph 11b; and
• any allocation or designation which cuts across the boundary of plan areas, or has significant implications for neighbouring areas, is appropriately managed by all relevant authorities.”  

This relates to existing plan-making but adds force to the use of the duty-to-co-operate at least in the short-term, until strategic plans can be brought forward.

Working with mayors

The NPPF Consultation states that Government will work with Mayoral Combined Authorities to explore extending existing powers to produce SDSs which, by not relying on new primary legislation, will “allow us to get a head start”. 

This is significant. Firstly, the legislative basis for universal strategic planning was dismantled over a decade ago so would take at least two to three years to get back on the statute books. Spatial Development Strategies offer a short-term fix, although the experience of Mayoral Combined Authorities to date is not promising.

The Greater London Plan is an SDS, but Places for Everyone (which started life as the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework) is not. Following the withdrawal of a constituent authority, the latter was progressed instead as a joint local plan with consequent implications for the time taken to prepare and adopt it.

An extension of SDS powers was sought in 2017 for the Liverpool City Region and the West of England, but the latter abandoned their SDS at examination when co-operation between authorities faltered. Liverpool City Region has continued with its SDS but, despite starting work in 2019, it has yet to reach publication stage and it proposes housing targets that were previously set by the constituent local authorities.

West Yorkshire CA was going to prepare an SDS in its initial Devolution Agreement, but this was deferred pending planning reform. Both Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and South Yorkshire have powers to prepare a non-statutory spatial framework, but neither is currently being prepared. The West Midlands chose not to ask for strategic planning powers as part of its devolution deal and they do not form part of the newly created East Midlands CA powers.

So, the head start is not quite as much as might first appear. The new Government states that it will work in lockstep with mayors and local leaders but as Catriona Riddell, widely regarded as the expert on strategic planning, says, if mayoral CAs are required to prepare an SDS, the governance model needs to change so that it doesn’t require unanimity between constituent authorities. That view isn’t universally shared, as Eamonn Boylan, former GMCA chief executive and an architect of the GMSF, argues that mayoral planning powers risk running counter to local democracy. It could be argued though that it is local democracy that has been the downfall of those CAs attempting to progress a strategic plan. The Government’s strong leadership on this issue will be vital to its success.

Elsewhere in England

Of course, large swathes of England where the need for housing is greatest do not have mayoral authorities and it is unclear what body could undertake a similar role in the absence of the former Government Offices which were abolished during the coalition period. The NPPF consultation says that the Government will look at ‘priority groupings’ of authorities where strategic planning may assist, especially in the sharing of housing requirements.

This might point to areas where joint planning is already underway such as Greater Exeter, areas where Labour previously promoted growth such as the PUSH area around Southampton/Portsmouth, or areas with longstanding unmet need issues like Oxfordshire. In the absence of mayors, there could be a variety of governance models evolving out of existing co-operation arrangements or a one-size-fits-all approach that draws from best practice.

Whilst many of the urban CAs align well with Functional Economic Market Areas, other potential vehicles for strategic planning, such as traditional counties align less well. Old Travel to Work Areas are also of more limited value as patterns of commuting and flexible working are changing the dynamics of local economies. Some innovative thinking may be required to find the best solutions.

The longer-term view

Within the NPPF consultation, chapter 5 paragraph 29 states:

“Over recent years, there have been concerns that plans containing strategic scale proposals and associated infrastructure can require implementation over a long period, making it more difficult to provide evidence of deliverability and viability. We want the planning system to enable such long term and ambitious planning, while recognising that such plans need to be grounded and realistic. We do not have a firm proposal to address to this point, so instead ask the following question: 

Question 13: Should the tests of soundness be amended to better assess the soundness of strategic scale plans or proposals?”

This is a question for the current local plan system but could equally apply to a new tier of strategic planning, where it may be more appropriate to assess strategic scale proposals which require a longer-term perspective. The same is true of strategic Green Belt release, where more ambitious proposals such as those being contemplated by the New Towns Task Force could be considered at a more strategic level.

Preparing strategic plans

Experience shows that strategic planning was not only criticised for imposing ‘top-down targets’ but began to take such a long time to process that they were rapidly overtaken by events, holding up the preparation of local plans along the way. 1988’s PPG10 Strategic Planning Guidance for the West Midlands was just eight pages long and was issued after a short consultation, whereas the 2021 London Plan is 542 pages plus annexes. The reintroduction of a strategic tier of planning therefore needs to balance the benefits of taking a longer-term view of the bigger picture, whilst not overburdening the process and complicating the output.

As Yoda might have put it “strategic planning, difficult it is”. As stakeholders respond to the consultation, and Government contemplates how to deliver universal coverage of strategic plans in this Parliament, we can only hope that the ‘force’ will be with them.

To discuss strategic planning or the NPPF consultation please contact Mike Best.

9 August 2024