Planning Reform for Small Sites and Backland Development in the UK

The Architect's Perspective

As an architect, navigating the planning system for small sites and backland development in the UK presents several challenges. One of the primary pain points is the difficulty in engaging in meaningful discussions with planning officers. Effective planning relies on the ability to thrash out design ideas in consultation with various stakeholders. However, the current processes are time-consuming, often leading to frustration and delays. This makes it difficult for architects to effectively communicate their vision and for planning officers to understand the nuances of each project.

The problem with the planning system is fairly obviously a lack of resources. In the old days, we were able to meet and discuss with the planning officers and find reasonable solutions. Public planning meetings were well managed and well resourced, and it was possible to have a reasonable discussion and a decision made with all parties fairly represented. Nowadays, the planning departments don't have enough time to deal with applications and consequently look to make decisions as time-efficiently as possible. Often this involves no discussion with applicants and certainly no acceptance of amendments to resolve issues that come up. The result of this is that applications are often refused unnecessarily, leading to long delays in developments navigating the process.

It's easier for a case officer to refuse an application for a small spurious reason than to take on the potential backlash and engagement from objectors (often NIMBYs) who often have enough resources to fight the applicants enough to cause a stalemate. Of course, it is correct that the public should have a say in what is approved, but this should not be simply a right to refuse; it must be set against key planning issues only. In my view, these should be limited to direct impact on amenity such as loss of light, overlooking, ongoing genuine nuisance such as noise pollution, and light pollution. Parking strain should be dealt with separately by the local authority who make a lot of money from parking, so it shouldn't be the burden of planning officers. Bins and fire access both should, of course, be necessary compliance matters but not necessarily managed by planning officers. What the building looks like should be left to the skill and expertise of the architect and not the opinion of untrained laypeople and planning officers. The expression "too many cooks spoil the broth" certainly applies to designing buildings as much as cooking. Designing by committee unfortunately promotes mediocrity.

Clearly, if money can't be made available to resource the local planning authorities better, then there needs to be some more fundamental change. Simplifying the process is probably sensible — keep planning permission focused on planning issues and leave other aspects of development to other bodies. Sustainable design and performance should be determined through a pre-construction building control application (as is done in Scotland). Section 106 / development contributions should be dealt with by the tax system. £1000's or even millions are negotiated as part of planning approvals — it's irrelevant to the planning issues; deal with that fairly through a taxation system… be it stamp duty or corporation tax or other. Planning should be one step in the process of development; clearly, it is an important one and adds value, but it shouldn't be burdened with aspects of society and aspirations outside the basics of planning. Just because you get planning permission does not mean you can build, if, for example, building control issues cannot be resolved. Even construction management plans should be separate from planning, even if it involved further public consultation and negotiation.

Simply put, architects should design buildings and planners should protect existing amenity. Conservation areas should be dealt with through a separate process; why not get planning approval first and then get conservation area approval or vice versa? If planning is simply focused on planning, then the design team will know what it needs to do to comply; at the moment, it is too subjective. It shouldn't be subjective — it should be clear.

Current Processes: Planning in Principle and PREAP

While there are mechanisms like planning in principle and the Pre-Application Advice (PREAP) process that allow applicants to receive feedback, these methods have limitations. The PREAP, for instance, is non-binding and tends to be overly conservative in its opinions. This conservatism stifles innovation and makes it difficult to achieve a balanced negotiation. Moreover, the non-binding nature of PREAP means that even after extensive discussions, there is no guarantee that the feedback will be taken into account in the final decision, adding to the uncertainty and frustration for architects and developers alike.

Planning in Principle is a good mechanism that I think is underused, but perhaps the problem is that full planning consent is still too subjective, so the planning in principle is such a small step (especially on small sites) that it is barely worth taking separately.

Towards a More Collaborative Approach

For the planning system to be effective, it needs to foster a genuine sense of collaboration. This means moving away from rigid, conservative stances and towards a more negotiable process. The focus should remain on critical planning principles such as protecting neighbours' amenity, ensuring minimum standards of space and light, and addressing safety considerations. However, the process should not get bogged down in aesthetic design preferences. Instead, it should encourage creative solutions that meet functional requirements while also allowing for innovative designs. Collaboration between architects, planners, and the community is essential to create spaces that are both functional and aesthetically pleasing.

However, this needs to be propositional. I recently heard of a case where a local authority suggested it might be acceptable and appropriate to set up what they called a planning performance agreement which they resourced at £10,000 in order to determine a householder application within an 8-week programme (the statutory time frame). If this is the cost to do the job properly, then it is clear the fee structure and the system are not compatible — so one has to change!

Embracing Digital Technologies in Planning

The integration of digital technologies in the planning process could revolutionize how we approach urban development. Building Information Modeling (BIM), Virtual Reality (VR), and Augmented Reality (AR) are powerful tools that can enhance the planning and design process, making it more efficient and transparent.

BIM allows for the creation of detailed 3D models of buildings and infrastructure, which can be easily shared and analyzed by all stakeholders. This technology enables better collaboration between architects, planners, and other professionals involved in the development process. It also facilitates more accurate cost estimations and helps identify potential issues early in the design phase.

Virtual and Augmented Reality technologies can provide immersive experiences of proposed developments. This allows planners, developers, and the public to visualize projects in their intended context, leading to more informed decision-making. VR and AR can be particularly useful in public consultations, helping community members understand the impact of proposed developments on their neighborhoods.

The use of these technologies aligns with the concept of Construction 4.0, which emphasizes the digitalization of the construction industry. By adopting these digital tools, the planning process can become more data-driven, efficient, and responsive to the needs of communities. This approach could significantly reduce the time and resources required for planning applications, while also improving the quality and sustainability of urban development projects.

Moreover, these digital tools can be integrated with the virtual world concept mentioned earlier. By combining BIM models with a city-wide virtual environment, planners could create a comprehensive digital twin of urban areas. This would allow for more accurate simulations of how new developments might affect traffic flow, sunlight exposure, and other urban dynamics.

While the adoption of these technologies may require initial investment and training, the long-term benefits in terms of efficiency, accuracy, and public engagement could be substantial. As we move towards a more digitalized planning process, it's crucial that local authorities and planning departments are equipped with the necessary tools and skills to leverage these technologies effectively.

Unlocking Potential: The Circular Economy

Unlocking the potential of millions of homes on backland sites requires a proactive planning system. Local developers, builders, tradespeople, suppliers, and designers stand to benefit immensely. This would fuel the circular economy, create local jobs, and bolster the local economy through increased accountability and investment in local amenities. By promoting the development of small sites, we can make better use of existing spaces, reduce urban sprawl, and create more sustainable communities. Additionally, the circular economy principles ensure that resources are used efficiently, reducing waste and promoting sustainability in the construction industry.

Conclusion

In summary, planning reform for small sites and backland development should aim to streamline the consultation process, making it more collaborative and negotiable. By doing so, we can unlock the potential for significant local development, driving economic growth and creating sustainable communities. A more flexible and collaborative planning system will not only benefit architects and developers but also the wider community by fostering innovation, creating jobs, and promoting sustainable development practices.

Technology — a virtual world. In today's day and age, there is no reason why all proposals can't be assessed in 3D. The virtual world would evolve over time and make it very easy to measure impact of overlooking and overshadowing. In fact, models could be automatically approved based on the necessary criteria: light levels, areas of green space, etc.

I look around London and see development opportunity everywhere. There is no shortage of places to build, and these sites should be built on. Developers need assurance before making the big risk gamble on planning; small steps to take would streamline the process and allow reasonable resourcing to be placed on development at the relevant stages. Along with the use of technology, which is so far behind in the construction sector completely unnecessarily, simple computer modeling would allow schemes to be checked and validated instantly, which would speed things up.