A time for review
Published: 07 February, 2009
New planning rules could change the face of development when the market returns, writes Ian Anderson.
Last year’s opening of new shopping centre floorspace coincided with the bitter winds of economic downturn which have turned into full-blown recession. Weekly press stories of schemes delayed or indefinitely shelved are further dents to confidence in a development market already reeling from higher build costs, lower tenant demand and an occupier market seemingly shrinking by the day.
There can be no doubt, with the recent plethora of town centre focused regeneration, that the renaissance of many town centres is being realised. However, after a decade of ‘town centre first’ planning, latest government figures suggest that only 42 per cent of retail space is actually built in our town centres.
This revelation coincides with a review of national planning guidance for town centres. An enhanced ‘impact test’ for new development is mooted in response to criticisms that existing planning tests are too blunt. Even for those involved in planning, the new test suggests a complex range of factors which need to be weighed in the balance for new development proposals. The draft policy suggests if there is ‘significant adverse impact’ to factors such as the development plan, public and private investment and vitality and viability then proposals should ‘normally’ be refused, but that where there is ‘some impact’, then mitigating factors such as employment and community benefit may be considered and planning approved.
The aim is to devolve power back to local planning authorities to determine the spectrum of judgements: at one level this really does represent ‘true planning’ as it requires a judgement on those who benefit, against those who may not. However, the practical implications of this idealism need to be carefully weighed. The new impact test is likely to result in more weighty ‘impact assessments’ prepared to support proposals and the range of policy tests could lead to conflict between developer, local authority and third party interests.
Planning policy may be made by the government, but it is interpreted through the courts and there is a very real danger, in moving from the ‘simple yet blunt’ approach of PPS6 that we may herald a new era of ‘planning by appeal’. The arbiter of judgement in such appeals will be the Secretary of State – which will hardly meet the devolutionary principles the new guidance seeks to deliver, nor the resulting bottleneck meet the faster, more transparent system we have been promised.
The ability to ‘plan properly’ is welcomed, but at a time of economic doubt we need the certainty of a legislative framework to plan difficult and complex investment decisions for the continued renaissance of our towns and cities. At a time when all investment decisions are being re-appraised, any perceived shift in emphasis by the Government may lead to shorter term speculation on job-led regeneration out of centre, rather than long term complicated town centre assembly.
At a time of uncertainty what is required is strong direction: it really is in no-one’s interest to return to the laissez faire free for all of the 1980s.
Ian Anderson is head of retail and leisure planning at CB Richard Ellis
