Although the process of updating the existing local plan for the city continues and controversies arise on some planning and listed building applications (such as the demolition of the swimming baths), fundamental changes to the system are proposed over the next few years.
There are three significant proposed changes.
Firstly the Council’s Planning Committee will operate differently. For example, councillors sitting on this committee must have successfully completed a certified training course beforehand. Their role will be to only focus on major controversial applications with the vast majority of decisions being delegated to officers. The government believes this will result in a more efficient and quicker decision-making.
Coventry Society welcomes the training requirement, but we are sceptical of other changes since most decisions are already delegated to officers. Our main concern, however, is that it could weaken even further the ability of local people to influence decisions on planning applications that affect them. Furthermore, a fundamental issue that is not addressed is how can local people find out about planning applications?
Secondly, it is proposed that the Council’s local plan that currently provides a guide on, for example, how many new homes and employment sites are needed and where in the city over the next 15 years, will become less significant. Instead, these strategic issues will be determined by the West Midlands Combined Authority through its spatial development strategy (often abbreviated to SDS). What a grand bit of jargon this is!
As we have previously pointed out, work on the SDS covering the whole of the West Midlands conurbation has already started and it is likely to be one of the first of these plans to be approved in England. The government is already consulting nationally on detailed guidance on procedures and content.
Coventry Society in principle supports strategic planning. For instance, it is not sensible for every council to put forward in their local plans sites for gigafactories etc. But the history of strategic planning in England is littered with disasters. Those of you of a certain vintage may remember the saga of structure plans in the 1960s and 1970s. For example, Coventry’s Structure Plan in the early 1970s included symbols on a diagrammatic map showing broad locations for major developments. The public were mystified about what this meant as there were no geographical boundaries. But by the time planning applications were submitted, they found out it was too late to object to the principle of development. Will the same fate arise when local people want to object to planning applications in Coventry which have previously been highlighted in the West Midlands SDS?
Our view is that the West Midlands Combined Authority, at the very least, has a duty to explain to local people what the implications of their policies are at a grass-roots level.
Thirdly, the proposals require that Coventry City Council’s local plan follow the policies in the SDS. It cannot deviate from these. As a result, it will have less relevance and significance. It will deal only with detailed matters such as the boundaries of major development sites. Coventry Society will, of necessity, need to engage with the development and content of the West Midlands SDS if we continue to seek a ‘quality Coventry’.
Finally, is there anything to be done to sort out these challenges? The government has issued a consultation document on its revised national planning policy framework (NPPF). This contains proposals about SDS and many other changes to planning policies. The consultation can be found at National Planning Policy Framework: proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system – GOV.UK and runs until 10 March. But be warned, it is like walking through treacle – the document is 127 pages long and there are 225 consultation questions.