Introduction

Planning has long been ‘under attack’ (Lord and Tewdwr-Jones, 2014) – not just since the publication of the highly controversial White Paper Planning for the Future (MHCLG, 2020a). The prime minister’s opening remarks in the planning White Paper cited earlier are just some of many clearly laying the blame with the planning system for all that is wrong. England is not the only country struggling with a persistent housing crisis (Wetzstein, 2017) and using the planning system to address it, yet the debate seems a little more adversarial there than elsewhere. In addition to housing numbers, there is also a persistent issue in terms of design quality, with many approved developments even contradicting national planning policy (Carmona et al, 2020).

One of the key proposals of the White Paper (MHCLG, 2020a) was the introduction of a zoning mechanism in all but name. Local plans were supposed to zone land into three distinct categories: growth areas, renewal areas and protected areas. Growth areas indicate sites of substantial development, including both greenfield and brownfield land, which automatically grant outline approval. Renewal areas would cover the existing built-up area, where there would be a presumption in favour of sustainable development, with fast-track planning permission. Only in protected areas, which according to the White Paper, in essence, refers to open countryside that is not designated as growth or renewal areas, would the planning system continue to operate more or less as is, with each planning application being dealt with individually on its merits. Despite the attempt at a rulebased approach, the White Paper envisaged that planning applications that are different to the plan could nevertheless still be submitted (MHCLG, 2020a: 34).