Round the houses

It bounced no fewer than five times between the House of Commons and the House of Lords before reaching agreement, has passed through five different planning ministers and holds the distinction of being the first bill to have taken more than one parliamentary year to become law and to have been read in two Queen's Speeches.

The legislation was launched with fanfare in December 2001 as the most radical piece of planning reform since the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act. Since then, it has been pushed from pillar to post, from minister to minister, suffering tinkering, modification and outright reversals en route. One could be forgiven for concluding it has not been the government's number one priority.

Yet even now, doubts remain over whether it has fulfilled its original aim: to grease the wheels of the formerly arduous and much criticised planning process so more homes can be built more quickly.

To chart the course of the bill since its inception, let's take an example close to many people's hearts: planning gain, the system by which councils force developers to build homes or facilities in return for planning permission. The confusion and climbdowns over section 106 planning gain agreements during the life of the bill characterise this troubled piece of legislation.

For most people in development and planning, it is the single most important issue and their single biggest gripe. In December 2001, when Stephen Byers was still secretary of state for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the government asked if planners wanted a development tax as a straightforward way of paying for development obligations. The response was an overwhelming "no" and all proposals were dropped.

But somehow, after another year and without any further consultation, the idea resurfaced. For many planning people, the government's announcement on 6 November 2003 that it wanted to reintroduce planning tariffs in the form of the "optional planning charge" was the last straw – frustration became outright rebellion. An outraged and unprecedented coalition of registered social landlords, planners, commercial developers, businesses and peers forced the government to take yet another look.

The result is that now, as the bill turns into law, the sector is still none the wiser as to what is going to happen to planning gain. The issue is out for consultation with a ministerial taskforce, and there is little prospect of finding out in the immediate future.

And then, right at the end of this marathon of legislation, as the bill was in its final turbulent days in the Lords, the Barker Report on housing supply was published, calling for another radical review of planning policy.

While planning minister Keith Hill this week ruled out any further legislation in the near future, a significant minority of housing and planning professionals are muttering that the bill is confused and doesn't reflect the Treasury's housebuilding agenda.

So, what do those who'll have to get to grips with it think?

The story so far

December 2001
Launch of planning green paper
Billed as the biggest shake-up in planning for half a century, the green paper sets out a regional basis to planning and scraps local plans in favour of local development frameworks that would fit into the wider regional plans. It also includes two highly controversial proposals: to charge developers a tariff to replace section 106 agreements and to give parliament the power to overrule the appeals process to approve major infrastructure projects.

December 2002
Launch of Planning & Compulsory Purchase Bill
Lord Rooker heralds the bill as putting community consultation at the heart of planning policy. After a huge backlash from developers, tariffs don't make it in; neither does parliamentary approval for major projects. Although thought by many to be essential for getting big developments in the Thames Gateway off the ground, it was too controversial. But a decision to replace outline planning with a more risky statement of councils' desires does appear.

June 2003
Government admits bill will be held over to the next year
The government is widely accused of allowing the bill to drift because of uncertainty over a Cabinet reshuffle. It becomes the first to take advantage of a new law allowing bills to move into a second parliamentary year. The government also adds an amendment to end the Queen's privilege of building on royal land without planning permission.

November 2003
Optional planning charge inserted
As the bill prepares to leave the House of Commons, planning minister Keith Hill announces a return of the planning tariff under a different guise – the optional planning charge. A two-month consultation is launched but the government makes it clear that whatever people say, the bill will include the charge.

January 2004
County councils' consultation
There's pressure from the House of Lords over the issue of moving planning powers to regional bodies, which currently have no democratic mandate, so the government introduces a statutory duty on them to consult county councils.

March 2004
Planning charge dropped … or is it?
After being savaged in the Lords over the lack of consultation on the optional charge, Hill strikes a deal. The clause enabling the charge stays, but implementation will be delayed until the findings of an industry taskforce.

Outline planning consent gets the OK after all
Loud protests over replacing outline planning consent with a less secure statement of intention mean the government backs down: outline planning permission is back in, but will be subject to a review in June.

April 2004
Make-up of regional board changed
Lords remain intransigent over the so-called "democratic deficit" of regional planning. After the bill ricochets five times between the two houses of parliament, the Lords secure amendments guaranteeing that elected members sit on regional boards.

May 2004
Royal assent
An efficient, effective, quick and fair planning system is secured for all time. Well, at least until the government responds to the changes called for in the Barker review of housing supply, such as merging regional housing with regional planning boards …

The verdicts

What the experts say on the final version of the act

Lord Falconer hasn’t really had the discredit he deserves for this bill – he drafted it

Robin Tetlow, director, Tetlow King Planning

Robin Tetlow
director, Tetlow King Planning
5 out of 10

Lord Falconer hasn't really had the discredit he deserves for this bill – it was him that drafted this in the first place and back in 2001 he said it would be done and dusted in a year.

Now we have it, there are still a lot of questions to be answered. If you put your hand on your heart, you can't say there's anything in there for affordable housing. There are essential contradictions that are not resolved – the tension between making the system more accountable and easing development.

Most of the bill isn't actively bad but you do wonder if we really need it. Couldn't the time have been better spent doing other things, such as revising planning policy guidance note PPG3 or sorting out section 106?

Mike Gallimore
partner, Lovells
6 out of 10

The disappointing thing is that the emphasis seems to have shifted – from being about getting through major infrastructure projects to, increasingly, community consultation – and over time, its focus has just got lost.

It was enormously frustrating that the government didn't consult before bringing out the optional planning charge, and a lot of developers are still really worried about how it's going to go – there's clearly a conflict between the Treasury and the ODPM on how it will pan out. In truth, the bill has only tinkered round the edges.

Susie Kemp
chairman, Local Government Association planning executive
7 out of 10

Local authority planners are fed up with constantly being told it's all our fault. We've got to demonstrate that we're a positive partner in development.

It's a shame nothing's happened on section 106, it's been too long in the coming. But now the ministerial taskforce is looking at it, we're extremely encouraged the minister is taking it that seriously. Will it make the planning system faster and fairer? Only time will tell.

Everybody knows the Local Government Association has had issues with various parts of the bill, but now we think it's time to look forward and concentrate on how we're going

to implement this. We think it's a good framework for the future and we're committed to making it work.

Merron Simpson
policy director, Chartered Institute of Housing
5 out of 10

The bill is marred by a sense of several different hands with disparate agendas being involved at different times.

It's definitely an improvement on the existing system, but it took us a lot longer than it should have done and any potential for making the system faster seems quite small.

Unfortunately, now we have the bill, it perhaps looks like the arguments that prompted the need for reform in the first place have moved on. With what's coming out of the Barker review, you do have to question whether this is the right platform for where we want to be going – is the act almost out of date already?

Baroness Sally Hamwee
Liberal Democrats' ODPM lead in the House of Lords
5 out of 10

Like too much legislation, the act depends on regulations yet to be finalised – and which any secretary of state can change more or less at will.

It is quite wrong that the government can introduce something as fundamental as a new tariff regime and changes to section 106 as secondary legislation that parliament will not be able to amend.

The second chamber forced second thoughts on a range of matters in response to effective lobbying. But the government avoided a complete climbdown, for instance on the length of planning permissions, by agreeing clearer guidance on how authorities can extend or shorten their life under the 1990 Planning Act.

I would give this bill higher marks were it easier to understand – pity the poor practitioner – and, above all, were it not for the democratic deficit at the heart of the regional arrangements, losing the counties' decision-making role without elected authorities taking it over; in short, putting convenience above democracy.

Gideon Amos
director, Town & Country Planning Association
7 out of 10

There are welcome parts where it sets out a new framework for regional planning, which will be vital. London now has its London Plan, and so it will be with the rest of the country; this will be very influential.

However, there is a real risk the new system at a local level will just delay everything further. It's going to take councils a huge amount of time to prepare local development frameworks and, as always, the most important thing is implementation.

Yes, it will be fairer, but the jury's definitely out on whether it will be faster.