Steven Tolson

For the past six years, I have had the honour of serving as chair of the Housing and Place Delivery Forum, established by the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE). The Forum convened a diverse group of professionals and community practitioners from the public, private, and third sectors. Its aim was to draw lessons from practical experiences in the built environment to better understand the realities of implementation and assess the feasibility of translating policy objectives into tangible outcomes. By analysing real-world experiences, the Forum sought to identify best practices, pinpoint challenges, and explore potential solutions to improve the planning system.

The Forum undertook a thorough review of various development projects and public policies, producing academic papers, blogs, and submissions to the Scottish Government. In May 2023, we hosted a conference that brought together a wide range of delegates to discuss the implementation of the newly introduced National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). Particular emphasis was placed on its bold proposals to align development delivery with urgent climate objectives.

Throughout my tenure, I was struck by the commitment among Forum members to achieving meaningful outcomes. The focus extended beyond constructing well-designed homes and places to the creation of developments that deliver broader public benefits. However, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted momentum, and although meetings continued to attract strong attendance, the energy of in-person interactions was notably diminished.

Spatial planning became a central theme of the Forum’s discussions, with regular contributions from local authority planners, developers, consultants, and third-sector representatives. Chairing these events often felt akin to mediating between competing interests. While there was broad agreement on the principles behind policies, reaching a consensus on why these policies often fell short in practice proved challenging. The former Chief Planner for Scotland’s observation that planning can be ‘adversarial’ resonated with many of our debates.

One participant, a Head of Planning, acknowledged the prevalence of ‘game playing’ in the system but found it difficult to propose effective measures to address such behaviours. This challenge reflects broader cultural dynamics, underscoring the need for politicians and officials to address these ingrained practices if climate goals are to be met. A recurring theme was the importance of earlier and more collaborative engagement in planning. What was once referred to as ‘forward planning’ has increasingly been supplanted by reactive processes that foster confrontation among developers, regulators, and communities.

Endeavouring to uphold policy has not been helped by vague ill-defined policies. Having policy flexibility, as some argued, also provides an invitation for speculative investment. Where policies lack clarity then the evidence suggests that opportunistic developers will seek to challenge policy ambiguity through the appeal process. Statistics show an increasing proportion of appeals upheld in favour of developers highlighting systemic shortcomings. A more robust approach to local development planning could help address this issue, reducing costly and time-consuming appeals.

Another recurring discussion focused on the limitations of the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA) process. Its narrow scope and lack of precision have been widely criticised, particularly given its role in shaping local development plans. Forum members frequently pointed to the need for clearer and more rigorous assessments to support effective policy implementation.

Greater clarity and precision in policy would likely require more work upfront, but this could reduce conflicts later in the process. Investing in thorough planning investigations at the outset, rather than defending policies through appeals, would represent a more efficient use of public resources.

The ‘Plan-Led’ system rightly emphasises the importance of well-researched and thoroughly evaluated development plans. Lessons from European practice suggest that rigorous planning can significantly reduce the need for appeals, offering a model for improving the UK system. Historically, UK planning operated within a ‘systems approach’ that prioritised such rigour, but this has diminished in recent decades.

NPF4’s focus on urban regeneration and the reuse of vacant and derelict land is commendable, but it faces significant hurdles, including fragmented land ownership, infrastructure requirements, and the need for denser, more affordable housing typologies. As society evolves, with smaller households and an ageing population, there is a pressing need to align housing delivery with these changing demographics. The current emphasis on larger, less efficient homes at lower densities is increasingly at odds with climate and social objectives.

The planning system’s capacity to address these challenges is constrained by resource limitations. Public planners, while eager to embrace NPF4’s ambitions, often find themselves unable to move beyond statutory responsibilities due to financial constraints. This situation highlights the need for greater investment in planning to enable a more proactive and effective approach.

Despite these challenges, I remain optimistic about the future of planning. My career began in Town and Country Planning, and as I approach its conclusion, I am heartened by the potential for the profession to reclaim its role as a proactive and creative force. The integration of new technologies, including artificial intelligence, offers opportunities to streamline administrative tasks, freeing planners to focus on shaping vibrant and sustainable places.

To achieve this, planning must engage more effectively with economic, technical, and social considerations. Collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders, from economists to engineers, will be essential in developing robust local development plans. Such plans should set a clear agenda that minimises the likelihood of challenges and appeals. Redirecting resources currently spent on appeals into early-stage planning and engagement could transform the system, delivering benefits for both the public and private sectors.

In conclusion, the vision for planning should be one where it leads the conversation on development, rather than reacting to it. By enhancing its relevance and independence, the profession can support the creation of better places and ensure it remains a vital contributor to civic society. This is a challenging but achievable aspiration – one that offers hope for the future of planning and the communities it serves.