Planning reforms: Early Engagement even more important!

The new planning reforms are expected to significantly alter how community opposition to new developments is addressed, primarily by reducing the avenues for local resistance and shifting decision-making power to centralised systems. Here are the key impacts:

Reduced Local Influence

1. Removal of Local Councillors from Decision-Making: The reforms propose removing local councillors and citizens from decisions on individual planning applications, instead relying on streamlined local plans that pre-zone land for development. This reduces opportunities for communities to object to specific projects.

2. National Development Management Policies: These policies aim to standardise planning rules across the country, limiting the ability of communities to set localised policies tailored to their needs.

   
   

Streamlined Approval Processes

1. Presumption in Favour of Development: National rules requiring local authorities to maintain a five-year housing land supply mean that if councils fail to meet this requirement, developments are likely to be approved regardless of local objections.

2. Centralised Targets: Housing targets set by the government will override local preferences, forcing areas to accommodate more development even where opposition is strong.

   
   

Potential for Increased Opposition

1. Loss of Democratic Participation: By bypassing democratically accountable planning committees, the reforms may alienate communities and lead to perceptions of a "democratic deficit," further eroding trust in the planning system.

2. Alternative Forms of Protest: When denied formal opportunities to participate, communities may resort to informal protests or legal challenges, potentially delaying projects and increasing tensions.

   
   

Challenges in Addressing Opposition

1. Distrust of Developers: Research shows that opposition often stems from distrust of developers' motives and concerns about negative impacts on infrastructure, services, and property values. The reforms do little to address these underlying issues.

2. NIMBYism vs. Legitimate Concerns: While some opposition may be self-interested (e.g., fears about house prices), others raise valid concerns about sustainability and environmental impacts. Streamlining processes may overlook these nuanced objections.

   
   

In summary, while the reforms aim to expedite development by reducing community influence on individual applications, they risk intensifying opposition due to perceived disenfranchisement and unresolved concerns about development impacts.

Looking at the challenges in addressing opposition this tells us how important early engagement is, the longer you take to engage, the harder it becomes for you to gain the trust of the stakeholders your project will impact.