The Head of Planning Services has submitted a report requesting Cabinet to note the response on the White Paper Planning for the Future to be submitted to MHCLG.

Recommendation: Cabinet is recommended to:

1.    Note the response on the White Paper to be submitted to MHCLG.

The Head of Planning Services had submitted a report requesting Cabinet to note the response on the White Paper Planning for the Future to be submitted to MHCLG.

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning & Housing Delivery, introduced the report. It was unusual for a Council response to a Government consultation to be put before Cabinet but the implications of the White Paper on Planning for the Future were such that they warranted Cabinet’s attention.

The proposals contained in the White Paper as presently conceived would have a profound effect on the City’s control of many important matters: its general development;   its ability to respond appropriately to its heritage, to   provide social and affordable housing, and to set its own standards in relation to the climate emergency.

The White Paper was explicit about the Government’s intention to repeal the substance of the Town & Country Planning Act 1947. Despite the White Paper’s references to “democracy” and “efficiency” these were not features which emerged from the substance of the proposals. There had been a great deal of criticism of elements of the White Paper at a national level, notably in relation to the proposed use of an algorithm to produce housing numbers. However there were many other elements of the White Paper which gave a cause for concern.

It  was worthy of note  that the Oxfordshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Council were united in their opposition to the White Paper, to its centralising tendencies, its  lack of democracy and its  impracticality as well as to  the damage it would do to the provision of affordable housing, place making and local policy. These views were shared widely throughout the country and by councils of all political persuasions.

At a fundamental level the proposals would remove the crucial opportunity for local people to contribute to planning decisions, replacing it with the new version of the local plan. The zoning approach to plans suggested in the White Paper would be both complex and impractical. The proposals didn’t, for example, address the many and varied differences that exist in different parts of the City which would, in turn, require a multiplicity of zones to do them individual justice.

The White Paper set great store by the criterion of “beauty” as a key element in the decision making process but failed to define it.

The White Paper placed great emphasis on greater public engagement via digital means to provide certainty for the development industry whereas, since the 1947 Act, planning processes had sought to balance the needs of different interests in a more equitable way than the proposals would allow. The White Paper was explicit in its intention to remove what was regarded as the disputatious element of public consultation but this was something which, in practice, provided one of the cornerstones of the present system. The White Paper represented a profoundly damaging set of proposals which put the whole planning system, the communities which are protected by it and local democracy at risk and all efforts should be made to highlight and, ultimately,  resist them.

The Cabinet was unequivocal in its view about the damaging nature of these proposals and the threat they proposed to local democracy  as outlined in the response and described by Cllr Hollingsworth.

In discussion it was suggested that a few elements of the response might be expanded (eg that the “beauty” criterion is necessarily locality and subjectively based; the undesirability of a nationally introduced “identikit” house design; the need for clarity about the application of the proposals in the case of change of use;   the need to tackle land banking by developers; a challenge to  the focus on a  digital approach; the potential consequences of the proposals on  healthy place shaping; and the potentially negative effect of the proposals on environment and biodiversity (all members of the Cabinet having been contacted by constituents about the latter)).

Officers agreed to see that the points raised were sufficiently addressed in the proposed response or expanded before agreeing the text of the final submission with the Councillor Hollingsworth.

Summing up, Councillor Hollingsworth repeated the point that the proposals sought to bring to an end the benefits of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. While data are of course important, it was unwise for planning decisions to be driven principally by algorithms, there was no substitute for local community consultation. The government had identified a need for more homes, particularly affordable homes and the White Paper was proposed as a means of addressing that need.  The shortage was not, though, a function of the present planning regime it could, however, be addressed by the simple expedient of the Government choosing to invest in social housing.

The Chair thanked officers for their work in shaping this important response to a matter of such significance to the City.

Cabinet resolved to:

1.Delegate to the Cabinet Member for Planning & Housing Delivery agreement of the final response on the White Paper to be submitted to MHCLG .