Before 2020 the English planning system was undergoing reforms aimed at streamlining the process and giving local communities more of a say in the planning of their areas. The former English planning system was criticized for being slow, bureaucratic, and ineffective in delivering the number and type of homes needed (Allmendinger 2009). This led to the proposed reform, ‘Planning for the Future’, introduced by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2020 (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 2020). The reform aimed to streamline the planning process, increase the delivery of homes and prioritize the provision of infrastructure.
The reform reflected a shift towards a more market-oriented approach, prioritizing the needs of developers over local communities is more required in the terms of modern day realities. This approach aligns with Neoliberalism, which prioritizes the role of the market in shaping urban development and views planning as a means to facilitate economic growth (Fainstein and Campbell 2016). However, the reform faced significant opposition, with some arguing that it would undermine local democracy and lead to the degradation of the built and natural environment (TCPA 2020). The Raynsford Review, an independent review of the English planning system, concluded that the reforms would result in a reduction in the quality and quantity of affordable housing, and fail to address the root causes of the housing crisis.
The ‘Planning for the Future’ reform represents a significant shift in the approach to planning in England and has the potential to upgrade the future development of the country. However, it is important to consider the implications of this shift for communities and the environment (Fainstein and Campbell 2016). The emphasis on streamlining the planning process and prioritizing economic growth could result in a reduction in public participation in the planning process and a disregard for the needs of local communities (Raynsford 2018). This could lead to a decline in the quality of life for residents, particularly those in disadvantaged communities, and a degradation of the built and natural environment.
Additionally, the reforms could result in an increase in land value, making it more difficult for local authorities to acquire land for public use, such as affordable housing, green spaces, and community facilities (Raynsford 2018). The emphasis on growth at any cost could also result in a decline in the provision of affordable housing, exacerbating the current housing crisis in England (TCPA 2020). The Raynsford Review highlights the importance of considering the wider implications of the reforms, particularly with regards to affordable housing and the environment (TCPA 2020). The review argues that the reforms could result in a reduction in the quality and quantity of affordable housing and fails to address the root causes of the housing crisis, such as a lack of investment in social and affordable housing. The review argues that the reforms could result in a decline in the quality of the built and natural environment, particularly with regards to the provision of green spaces and the protection of historic buildings and sites.
In conclusion, the ‘Planning for the Future’ reform reflects a market-oriented approach to planning, but has been criticized for prioritizing economic growth over social and environmental considerations. The reforms have faced opposition from various stakeholders and have been criticized by the Raynsford Review as unlikely to address the housing crisis in a meaningful way. A more balanced approach is needed, one that recognizes the importance of both economic growth and the protection of communities and the environment. From this perspective, a more balanced approach to planning is needed, one that recognizes the importance of both economic growth and the protection of the built and natural environment.
References
Allmendinger, Phil. 2009. “Critical Reflections on Spatial Planning.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 41 (11): 2544–49. Web.
Fainstein, Susan S, and Scott Campbell. 2016. Readings in Planning Theory. Chichester, West Sussex, Uk: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 2020. “Planning for the Future.” Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Raynsford, Nick. 2018. “Planning 2020 – Final Report of the Raynsford Review of Planning in England. Executive Summary.” Town and Country Planning Association.
TCPA. 2020. “The Wrong Answers to the Wrong Questions: Countering the Misconceptions Driving the Government’s Planning Reform Agenda.” Tcpa.org.uk. 2020. Web.