Alternative development control regimes proposed for housing growth areas

Three alternatives to the current planning regime for development in areas where extensive major building is planned, like the four housing growth areas in south east England, have been proposed in a report by Reading University commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

These proposals involve the following: a system of co-regulation; a so-called "positive planning" approach involving combined planning and permission which has some similarities with the simplified planning zone (SPZ) concept; and a greater use of restricted covenants.

All the options have been drawn up as a substitute for the current system of development control for major schemes but within the new framework for development planning brought in by the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act.

The measures are not intended to replace the planning system as a whole and would not require major new legislation. Sites where these new provisions would apply would be designated in the Local Development Frameworks, suggested the report's authors, Phil Allmendinger and Michael Ball.

Under the co-regulation option, developers and planners would agree an overriding code of practice in a designated locality. As a result, developers could then undertake whatever development they feel is most appropriate within the confines of that framework agreement.

The 'positive planning' option would be a combination of planning and permission whereby land was designated in LDFs with parameters specified within which development can take place without the need for subsequent planning permission.

The third alternative would require a greater use of restrictive covenants in property titles, either for designated land or built structures. These would limit what could subsequently be built or redeveloped. The broad framework of the content of those covenants would be agreed between the land or property owner and the planning authority.

The reports authors stated: "All three approaches are predicated on a shift in the arena of negotiation between developers and planners away from detailed control of each scheme to one of providing a strategic design, layout and content framework within which actual development would take place."

Allmendinger and Ball argued that their proposals would encourage planning authorities to be more strategic and transparent in their planning guidelines and to justify "more rigorously" the principles on which they are based.

"These substitutes for detailed planning permission could facilitate the control required by local communities, while allowing greater freedom to developers to meet market demands more quickly and flexibly," claimed the researchers.

They added: "Developers would have incentives to make these approaches work and, so, it is expected that they would bring innovations to the negotiation process and be prepared to commit time, skills and funds to community consultation to achieve positive results - resources frequently lacking in many current detailed planning control processes."

View 'Rethinking the Planning Regulation of Land and Property Markets' here.

Roger Milne

4 May 2006