Jonny, Hello! 

 

Hi David! 

 

Congratulations on your period as chair of the planning group. What would you say are the three things that have arisen from your time as chair that stick in the mind and are key takeaways for people who aren't aware of what this expert panel does?

 

Well, I suppose it's a general statement that goes across everything but the first thing is that over the three years it's been a brilliant group of people to get together. The representation on the panel has been cross-sector, really senior people, really interesting people, and really nice people. We've had local authority heads of planning, senior heads of planning within the private sector, architects, lawyers, consultants. So, we’ve had quite a few different viewpoints and aspects to it all, which is a really good conversation to have. So that has been interesting. In terms of moments that have been interesting, I mean, obviously, in the first year, we were all very excited by the planning reform-led-by-Jenrick-days. We were very active, we led a survey of members, and we put in a response to it. I had my own personal views on it, that it was pretty nuts. And it was quite reassuring and interesting to hear that kind of absolutely everybody else thought it was nuts as well! Certainly, in London. And that was also backed up by the members though obviously, the feedback that we submitted was much more diplomatic than simply telling the government "This is nuts" – we were much more constructive. And there were some things in there that were helpful, but I mean, the overall thrust of it was, was... interesting. 

So that first year was quite focused around that, particularly from the planning perspective. Other moments? It was really interesting as well to see, looking back on it now amusingly, when Gove was first appointed, we were all quite excited to have Michael Gove, partly because we were all quite excited to see the back of Robert Jenrick, who clearly was not…well, certainly took some interesting decisions. So, I think when he left it was perceived to be a positive move, and when Michael Gove came in, that was seen to be a big hitter coming in. Now, I think probably most of us have a different view, some time on as to what he has been able to achieve, and how he has affected the industry. We've had some really interesting debates about social value and community consultation. And then there's been lots of sort of individual moments of just learning around the table with things that you just didn't realize was the case. When you suddenly get the script, you think you know quite a lot about planning and then you hear comments made that change your perspective. So, from that that perspective it has been very interesting.

 

Can you think of one of those, off the top of your head?

 

Well at the last one, a simple one, I hadn't realized, the heads of planning were saying, you know, the government's just increased the planning fees that developers were going to pay, partly as a way of helping to fund planning departments. But those planning fees are not ring-fenced. So, all the planning department heads of planning were saying it won't actually do anything to increase the number of planners, because that's just going to go into the general local authority pot and be spent on other things. And I was also like, "Oh, God, I hadn't realized that" (laughs) Sort of saying we're quite willing to pay more fees, if it leads to a better service, but the way it was being done… I know there's been some announcements just now in the autumn statement, but the previous saying that there's now additional level of service you can pay for but just the general increase in planning fees, if that's not ring-fenced to the planning departments, then it doesn't lead to any more resource for that planning team within the department. So that's just one example I hadn't realized.

 

And presumably on the resources question, that's one of the things that arose, meeting after meeting, did it? The planning departments just simply expressing that they can't cope and need more funding?

 

Funding was not really our issue, but the way that manifested itself was about the skills agenda. They are struggling to recruit and retain staff. And at the same time, as more and more requirements are being put on planning departments - planning departments were going to be at the forefront of the reform agenda that government is seeking so that the things that getting it are digitalization of the planning system, faster consultation, and adoption of local plans, and the use of design codes, for example.

All of those things have a massive impact on the officers' time. And yet what came back time and time again was that officers' time is used up as it is with the day-to-day work, let alone being able to then focus on this wider strategic work. And so, the real challenge has been in the skill shortage; it's also been affecting the private sector with the private sector colleagues around the table also saying it's been quite difficult to recruit and retain staff. So yeah, funding is 100% an issue, but the big way it comes through is in the skills challenge. 

 

Do you feel in any way that planners and the planning system is a bit of a punch bag, politically? 

 

Yes, I think it probably is. And when most politicians have talked about reforming the planning system, they don't know how they want to reform the planning system or what they want to do. And that's been absolutely clear through this current government, who've utterly failed to deliver any meaningful planning reform. And, obviously, we have the opposition talking about reform and talking very positively actually about getting things built.  The government has failed to deliver meaningful and substantial reform of the planning system. Part of the problem is that what they've put forward was initially going to be just too simplistic.

So, the Jenrick reforms would seem to have been driven by some think tank agenda where you could just zone the entire country into three things and that would solve everything, which does not work in a dense urban environment like London, or other cities as well. I mean, it just does not work at all. So, you've had quite a lot of the current government's planning reform agenda seems to be led by how it works in greenfield environments, and certainly not in complex urban city environments. That's been a big problem. The opposition is also talking about planning reform. We're not yet clear what that actually means in formal terms, but they are talking as well about the Green Belt not being quite as rigid as it is, which is something I personally agree with, because there's parts of the Green Belt that are dreadful, and basically scrub land, but because it's called the Green Belt it's sacrosanct. So being a bit more flexible, and certainly around parts of London and Enfield have been talking about their local plan wants to release parts in the Green Belt.

I personally think that is very sensible. And you've also seen decisions that this government have taken that have been highly political, and certainly where it affects London. So, for example, a number of the TFL schemes that got called in, and we've seen the M&S decision. And there's been various other decisions like the scheme at Albert embankment, where you just question why? Why is it being called in in the first place? And why is it being turned down? And then the way this government has been dealing with the fire safety of second staircase regulations has had such dramatic impacts, and it seems to me, it is not listening to the industry. And obviously, Michael Gove has taken the view of very heavily attacking the industry at the moment. So yes, it is not just the planning system, but the planning system and developers are a punch bag. 

 

Yeah. 

 

And, you know, given we're in a housing crisis and in desperate need for new homes, new infrastructure, new developments, it should be, you know... this is an industry that is of critical importance to the country, and yet, you're right, it does seem to be a bit of a punching bag.

 

How do you think the system can be improved? Did the group come up with any concrete proposals for that?

 

This is a really interesting debate. So, a lot of the general consensus is that you can make some smaller changes to the planning system, but if you actually fund it properly, it is fundamentally sound. And that is certainly something I agree with. It would be a mistake to make a wholesale, kind of, throw it away and almost start again, which is what the Jenrick proposals almost were, where he was supposed to have everything plan-led. Everyone's supposed to engage on a plan-led basis, which nobody really does. And then you're supposed to have design codes that manage everything. It was an approach that got a pretty negative response to. So, you do want to make sure that our planning system remains flexible and responsive and does allow local decision-making as an important part of local democracy.

So, a lot of the fundamentals of having a local plan and allowing local politicians to be able to judge developments against that plan against national policy, you know, a lot, certainly in London, you look at actually, it's led to very high-quality architecture, high quality development. And it's also led successfully to a lot of positive community gain, community benefit, from it. So, I hope the next government, whoever that might be, will take more positive attitudes towards where are the areas that we can be reforming the current planning system and making it work better. And fundamental to that will be the proper funding of local authorities’ local authority planning departments, addressing the long-term skills challenge, and embracing technology and digitization.  I hope that's the approach they take. On the planning panel, because we met three or four times a year, we didn't attempt to do what various other groups were doing, which is to try and rewrite the planning system; that was never going to be within our remit.

We have identified specific areas where we've made some suggestions on some planning reform, including at the London Plan level, in particular, where we felt that it should be a slightly shorter, more strategic document – it's become a little bit too detailed and cumbersome. And then we focus as well on two areas that people felt were enormously important, which was social value in the planning system, and community engagement, and how you properly engage local communities when developments are coming forward. So those were some of the areas that we focused on.

 

I was going to ask you about community engagement, because obviously your period of chairing this group extended through COVID, when there was much more digitization. Would you say that community participation has improved because of that?

 

Yes. I mean, obviously, I'm in a fortunate position where London communications agency, LCA, is an agency that is at the forefront of community engagement. COVID forced us to embrace digital technology faster than we were doing, and it has forced the whole country, the whole world, as we know, to embrace the same. We're having this meeting on Teams, that we weren't doing even four years ago. And it's the same now for community engagement.

So, it doesn't replace – it does not replace the face-to-face engagement. It doesn't replace actually showing people a model and putting it in a local hall and talking to people. But the tools that you now have at your disposal are much greater. It definitely allows you to reach out to a wider audience; it definitely allows you to tap into harder-to-reach groups, there's ways of reaching out to young people through social media, and also to engage more people, because the problem with the traditional meeting in a church hall is that they tend to be dominated by some of the leading players in the community and other people feel a bit shy. Actually, when you are having a webinar, for example, it does become considerably more democratic as to how people feel they have a voice in a meeting like that.

As well as how you're able to use different methods of feedback digitally. So yes, it has absolutely improved how developers and others are able to engage with local communities. But it also means they've got to work a bit harder to do it. They've got to be aware of what these different tools are. They've got to have the right help to enable them to do that. But yeah, no question. It's improved how you can engage. 

 

So, projecting five years from now in this sector what might we expect to have changed do you think? 

 

Right now, it's the end of 23 and start of 24. The sector is in a pretty difficult position at the moment as we know. There are massive viability challenges, build costs are high, borrowing costs are high. And although the number of planning applications is falling, there's still a decent number of planning applications. But the number of those planning applications that are now going to be turned into deliverable schemes is an interesting question, because a lot of what people are securing planning for isn't actually viable to deliver because of the economic conditions at the moment.

So, the industry does need a bit of a kickstart, a leg-up from government, both to make planning policy more certain, to make government decisions more certain and supportive. Because although I said earlier that I think the planning system does not need throwing away and starting again, it has become very costly and uncertain through the process. So, we have a fundamental supply and demand imbalance; we have an ever-growing housing crisis; we have office stock that we know needs to be bought up to modern standards of environmental performance, we have city centres that are still adjusting to the kind of post-COVID way that people have hybrid working. So, it's not just the complete Monday to Friday in the office, and weekend being very different, as we know.

So, there's a huge amount of development and adjustment that still needs to take place. London is a magnet for international investment. It has good governance, it is in the UK, which is attractive for international investment for a whole host of reasons. So, we have every ability to be harnessing all of that in the right way and see a real boom, if you like, a development boom, take place. So, at my most optimistic, I would hope in five years’ time that we have a supportive government environment for development and that the investment that we need into infrastructure, into hospitals, into schools, into housing, into retrofitting for environmental performance, are able to actually be delivered.

 

Final question. Have you enjoyed being chair? And what is your abiding memory, if you have one?

 

I definitely enjoyed it. Yeah! It's, been really interesting seeing the people around the table. I was trying to think about what my abiding memory if I have one is!  I suppose it's just the optimism of the people, really, I think everyone knows that you don't go into the built environment, if you're not probably a born optimist, because it's pretty difficult! (laughs). And so, you know, despite all the challenges that everyone faces, everyone's still really positive, nice to each other, happy, in the main. So, I suppose the main thing was just a really, really nice atmosphere that you had around those meetings will be the one thing you take away, because everyone is going into it trying to do something as a force for good. You want to be securing good outcomes. You want to be securing good architecture, good development, good community benefits. And so, the kind of unanimity of agreement on most issues was probably the one thing that I'll probably take away.

 

Brilliant. Well thank you on behalf of NLA for all the work you've done.

 

Good, thank you David, that's very kind. Speak to you soon. Cheers.

 

Bye!