Opening up policy making: The wisdom of four

Current planning policy runs to thousands of pages. The normal process is to do it in-house – ministers and civil servants redraft; then consult; amend (a bit) and promulgate. New drafts are largely the responsibility of the people who wrote the old versions – with the in-built conservatism that implies. And what looks good to people inside Whitehall on paper may be near impossible to make sense of on the ground. Practitioner advisory group Greg Clark decided to put his decentralisation philosophy to the test and invited:

• John Rhodes (the planner)
• Simon Marsh (of RSPB)
• Peter Andrew (of Taylor Wimpey)
• Councillor Gary Porter (Leader of South Holland Council)

- aka the 'Practitioner Advisory Group' - to come up with their own version. Unlike more normal reviews, the group produced a draft of what the framework could look like – as a basis for discussion and debate – rather than a long discussion of the issues. The outcome So what was the outcome of this approach?  The draft new framework runs to just 55 pages – and as such Gary Porter said that it was much more likely that councillors would take an interest in planning policy. Many of those attending on Wednesday welcomed its greater clarity. Specific concerns were raised:

• not enough about tourism or waste or energy
• how the pro-growth presumption would play against environmental limits
• how to assess housing demand
• the need for economic development.

Others thought that the group had not been radical enough:

• still focussing on control rather than a positive vision
• too silo'd
• “the same only shorter”
• some sacred cows (eg Green Belt policy) still grazing peacefully.

It was clear from the discussion that there were different interpretations of the same material. The process of producing a draft meant the opportunity for opening up issues for public discussion was missed, but overall most people thought they had achieved much greater clarity. Opening out policy In our report, Making Policy Better, we argue for opening out the policy process more; engaging outsiders and experts earlier and more directly. The practitioner advisory group is an interesting experiment with that approach. They received support from officials to understand specific issues but resolved their differences internally, and realised that they could achieve compromises they could live with, rather than just stick to entrenched positions and leave the government to arbitrate (and satisfy no one). The 'stakeholders' in the audience were  also positive: two thirds thought the approach had produced worthwhile results. Interestingly, at a completely separate event at the Institute last week, former Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt described how a similar approach, of remitting policy on flexible working to a group of apparently opposing parties, had come up with a policy that was more radical (and acceptable) than the government would have come up with in the confines of 1 Victoria Street. What next? The group has now done its work and sent its draft to the Department for Communities and Local Government.  Anyone interested can send in comments (or track changes) to the Advisory Group’s website. We can judge the real impact of this new approach when we see how far it influences the government draft due out before the recess.