Planning for growth - but whose? And where?

Tweet

The new draft Planning Framework is causing serious nerves, certainly in the Daily Telegraph.

The fear is that it was drafted jointly with leading developers – and in particular a consultant to supermarkets Asda – and is designed to allow a free-for-all.

Reading the document reveals a quite staggering series of ambiguities, so many that it could almost be deliberate, but either way is highly likely to lead to more appeals and appeals to law, which will leave local authorities even more powerless – the very opposite of localism.

There is an assumption that proposals should be agreed by planners if they represent ‘sustainable development’.  This is good for the new economics, especially where it affects local energy and distinctive local high streets – and those implications are spelled out.

‘Sustainable development’ is defined, with the conventional Brundtland definition, though it badly needs to be defined in more detail and in the legislation too.

But what is ‘sustainable economic growth’?  Does this refer back to the definition of sustainable development or does it just mean that the economic growth should continue inexorably?  That was a deliberate New Labour obfuscation that the coalition seems keen to keep.  Of course it will remain ambiguous unless it is clearly defined.

But most important, the term ‘growth’ is used to mean a whole variety of things in this document and so not surprisingly isn’t defined either.

As the document stands, we assume it just means that the money supply must increase.  But where?  If the financial growth happens at the corporate headquarters rather than where the development is taking place, does that count?  If the money leaks out of the local economy, does that count?  What kind of growth has the Framework in mind – growth in spending on security guards?  Growth in health spending? Growth in different sectors has different impacts on growth in employment, median incomes and job security and surely this is central. The term is highly ambiguous, and endlessly re-interpretable, unless the Framework defines it – and it doesn’t.

This is the real problem with ‘growth’.  By itself, the term is meaningless.  It just means increasing activity, and any sensible policy needs to be clearer than that – you can’t be for growth or against growth without knowing what is growing and where.

What happens if a major out-of-town retail development drains a local economy of money, but causes the retailer to grow?  That may be national growth but locally it is disastrous.

Everyone knows that some growth is destructive.  Why should this obvious truth still evade Whitehall?  The Planning Framework makes this issue urgent because, without a clear definition of ‘good growth’, then many more planning issues will end up in the courts.