Ideology and Institutional Change: The Case of the English National Planning Policy Framework

Abstract

This paper deploys a discursive institutionalist framework to explore how various categories of ideas -from ideology, to programme, to policy -interact to shape the planning policymaking process. Using the emergence of the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework in England as a case study, the role of the political ideology of the leadership of a political party (as distinct from, but related to, the broader category of 'neoliberalism') in shaping and legitimising planning reform is analysed. It is shown that it is not only the political ideological legacy of a political party and how it melds with the prevailing paradigmatic orthodoxy (such as neoliberalism) that matters in framing planning reform, but that the way in which ideas are communicated and consulted on in the policymaking process is also significant.

Embedding the land market: Polanyi, urban planning and regulation

“…The policy had, in effect, been primarily aimed at regulating local authorities to ensure that enough homes were granted planning permission, rather than limiting the behaviour of private actors in the development land market. This change to policy had prompted significant opposition at the time based on concerns about environmental impacts (Shepherd, 2021), and this again manifested in various debates in parliament in response to the 2020 White Paper, in which many Conservatives (as well as members of the opposition) attacked the government's proposals. In particular, it was the government's proposal to increase housing targets coupled with the attempt to remove the scope for community involvement in the determination of development proposals that prompted concern.…”

Re-contextualising purpose-built student accommodation in secondary cities: The role of planning policy, consultation and economic need during austerity

“…Whilst the number of new units is difficult to predict when accounting for increased student numbers and the movement of students from HMOs to PBSA, what is evident here is the discounting of local planning policy in favour of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (which sets out government planning policy in England), which has permitted saturation of the market. As a pro-growth, deregulationist framework (Shepherd, 2021), the NPPF has made it increasingly difficult for councils to refuse applications. This is because it includes a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ to encourage councils to approve schemes ‘that accord with an up-to-date development plan’; or where the ‘plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date’, then permission should be granted ‘without delay’ (MHCLG, 2019: 6).…”

“…This is because it includes a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ to encourage councils to approve schemes ‘that accord with an up-to-date development plan’; or where the ‘plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or where relevant policies are out of date’, then permission should be granted ‘without delay’ (MHCLG, 2019: 6). Shepherd (2021: 2) states that this was ‘a means by which central government could indirectly compel local authorities and communities to consent to more housing to support economic growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis’. Council planning was seen as an obstacle to growth, so the government attempted to stymy councils’ decision-making powers to contest applications.…”

“…Council planning was seen as an obstacle to growth, so the government attempted to stymy councils’ decision-making powers to contest applications. As Shepherd (2021: 10) reveals, this has resulted in permission for new housing, including PBSA, being granted in contravention of local plans and the desires of communities. This highlights the difficult local implications stemming from the centralised nature of the English planning system which does not allow for nuances stemming from differential regional markets or demand levels, where different political cultures, development histories and capacities of action may exist (McGuinness et al, 2018).…”

“…Peck (2012) describes this as the ‘extreme economy’ in which state downsizing and rolling privatisation are seen as ‘fiscal necessities’, often devolved to councils and those most economically vulnerable (see also Blyth, 2013; Featherstone et al, 2012; Gray and Barford, 2018). In planning, austerity has accelerated the neoliberalisation of planning, instilling further economic growth ideologies and inter-urban competitiveness into planning at the expense of planning for the public good (Davoudi et al, 2020; Inch, 2018; Miessner, 2020; Olesen, 2014; Shepherd, 2021).…”