It is the season so here’s something fun, or at least more fun than usual. How can internet memes help us understand planning reform. Here are a few I’ve thought of, please take these in good humour and send your suggestions on a postcard.
<ul>
 	<li><strong>Why would X do this / We’re all trying to find the guy who did this</strong> – These memes feature someone causing some form of catastrophe and then asking who is responsible. You can find more of an explanation and examples of the former meme here <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/who-killed-hannibal">https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/who-killed-hannibal</a>, and the latter meme here <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/were-all-trying-to-find-the-guy-who-did-this">https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/were-all-trying-to-find-the-guy-who-did-this</a>. I’ve been amused that there have been two recent instances where a regulator has said “not me!” in response to backlash. The first <a href="https://www.onr.org.uk/publications/regulatory-reports/other-reports/onr-s-regulatory-influence-on-the-epr-design-in-the-uk/">https://www.onr.org.uk/publications/regulatory-reports/other-reports/onr-s-regulatory-influence-on-the-epr-design-in-the-uk/</a> relates to almost 7,000 design changes at Hinkley Point C, with the regulator stating that they were not responsible for considering cost, and the second relating to the now infamous £100m bat tunnel with the regulator being forced to publish <a href="https://naturalengland.blog.gov.uk/2024/11/08/natural-england-role-in-high-speed-2/">https://naturalengland.blog.gov.uk/2024/11/08/natural-england-role-in-high-speed-2/</a> a statement (‘It is for HS2 Ltd to make choices, consider risks and factor in costs when deciding how to comply with environmental law)There are two potential lessons here. First, if cost and proportionality are not part a public body’s remit, shouldn’t they be? Second, whilst we’re all wondering who is responsible for disproportionality, it’s worth bearing in mind that our system naturally incentivises risk-aversion because of legal challenges and, importantly, picking and choosing your battles. That means even when, as in those two examples above, the regulator says ‘we simply assessed what was put in front of us, we didn’t require it’, it’s failing to decouple the explicit actions of a regulator from the implicit requirements, culture, and choosing the path of least resistance (e.g., it’s sometimes easier to simply agree, then have it out). Both of those recommendations require resources so that regulators feel comfortable challenging proposals, but – given culture is amorphous - it also requires re-asserting proportionality into processes for example through Written Ministerial Statements or other Government policy so that the mood music is “please don’t do this”.</li>
 	<li><strong>Cheems Mindset</strong>: Jeremy Driver wrote this highly relatable essay <a href="https://normielisation.substack.com/p/cheems-mindset">https://normielisation.substack.com/p/cheems-mindset</a> in which cheems (pronounced ‘keems’), a small Shiba inu dog signifies someone who scrambles around for reasons why something cannot be done. There are instances where raising reasons why something cannot be done is important but the mindset does this almost reflexively and, as Jeremy says, is ‘a deadly cause of sclerosis if it is the reflexive reaction to any new idea or policy proposal’; the mindset takes raising challenges not just as necessary (which it is), but as the defining characteristic to a policy response, with “it’s too complicated” being the knee-jerk reaction.Jeremy gives many examples in a non-planning context, but I’m struck by how often some commentators adopt the same mindset. For example, the Spanish and Germans are streamlining EIA in exchange for slightly more onerous environmental protections along the lines of the Special Compute Zones recently suggested by Jack Wiseman <a href="https://inferencemagazine.substack.com/p/getting-ai-datacentres-in-the-uk">https://inferencemagazine.substack.com/p/getting-ai-datacentres-in-the-uk</a> and the Tony Blair Institute <a href="https://institute.global/insights/climate-and-energy/revitalising-nuclear-the-uk-can-power-ai-and-lead-the-clean-energy">https://institute.global/insights/climate-and-energy/revitalising-nuclear-the-uk-can-power-ai-and-lead-the-clean-energy</a>. Those ideas are loosely based on infrastructure planning zones, explained here <a href="https://www.bdbpitmans.com/news-and-insights/967-could-infrastructure-investment-zones-help-keep-the-lights-on/">https://www.bdbpitmans.com/news-and-insights/967-could-infrastructure-investment-zones-help-keep-the-lights-on/</a>. The natural reaction of someone with Cheems mindset is to simply to say that there are international agreements that would prevent this (without specifying what, or considering that the overall system of environmental protection would be the same, if not better; without considering what the specific enforcement mechanisms are and whether that is likely, or if withdrawal is a feasible or necessary option).Or take judicial review, some explicitly said that the idea of reducing the number of bites of the cherry was not possible, that changing standing rules was not possible or that, even if it was as Lord Banner KC’s review contradicts, it wouldn’t be that significant. We’ve long been advocates of reforming JR, and we welcome and endorse the recommendations from his Lordship. Gradualism (i.e., slow change) is a form of trial and error that shouldn’t be shunned, and cheems mindset hampers or derides even those small movements, but we shouldn’t stop pushing for more. I’ve made the point before: but if you are seriously using the idea that international agreements are a block to any further thought, do you want us to remove the long-established Wednesbury unreasonable test which the Aarhus Compliance Committee is “concerned” <a href="https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news-and-cases/15-the-status-of-decisions-of-the-aarhus-compliance-committee-in-english-law-respect">https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/news-and-cases/15-the-status-of-decisions-of-the-aarhus-compliance-committee-in-english-law-respect</a> about?The lesson here is be creatively ambitious, even as you seek to overcome the hurdles: it’s going to be hard, for example, to do a robust SEA for the zones mentioned, and an actual assessment of what European countries charge in the JR costs is necessary before we can make grand claims about violating international agreements, but the mindset dismisses even considering what an assessment would look like or what EU countries are actually doing in their court systems nor the enforcement mechanisms, or what taking that view consistently would mean for the wider system.</li>
 	<li><strong>“Boardroom suggestion” / m</strong><strong>odel-based thinking: </strong>this meme <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/boardroom-suggestion">https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/boardroom-suggestion</a> features a guy being thrown out of a window of a boardroom meeting when he suggests a simple solution following suggestions that miss the point. This meme is the natural counter-weight to the anti-Cheems mindset. There is a tendency to suggest in unfavourable environments “what if we just came up with an entirely new planning regime?!”, when more gradual but politically feasible changes are likely to have more chance of making an actual positive impact. A good example is the ongoing debate about consultation. On the one hand, someone would say wouldn’t be wonderful if we just removed it? On the other hand, the political resistance and the alleged benefit of identifying problems sooner gets raised.I guess the point here is that a model for planning reform which is just “this is good, and this is bad” without considering secondary effects and political viability ends up eating a lot of time without doing much. For example, if I had a large majority in a new government, I might be more ambitious on reforming consultation. If I didn’t, and was worried about long-term backlash, I might suggest ‘why don’t you get rid of Category 3 persons’, make changes to statutory guidance to stop excessive consultation, and – at a stretch – remove the requirement for a PEIR. Not thinking through political constraints, different actors and power-brokers (e.g., PINS, the civil service) means you run the risk that your ideas will be lost like a fart in the wind.</li>
 	<li><strong>“Everythingism”</strong> – Joe Hill tweeted <a href="https://x.com/jo3hill">https://x.com/jo3hill</a> about “everythingism” recently: the basic idea is that we make decisions about a particular thing, into decisions about all the things we are interested in. For example, if you wanted to make a decision about whether X was the best energy generation, and then you started taking into account the extent to which that technology contributed to wider social value. The remedy to this is not to make each individual policy (or planning!) decision reflect all the outcomes we want, but to have as many policies as desired outcomes. Joe’s idea is a re-telling of the Tinbergen Rule: governments must use multiple policy instruments if they want to impact multiple policy targets.What does this have to do with planning? I think one of the greatest complexities in planning is that it forces us to treat a planning decision not as an overall trade off, but a series of clashes between competing principles. Let’s say you wanted energy generation infrastructure quickly, but you wanted to ensure environmental protection too. There is a conflict, and inevitably a trade off between the two. Rather than preventing permission for the former because of the latter, you could seek to use things outside of the planning decision to enhance the environment. Taking the Tinbergen Rule seriously you might even simply say that the role of the planning system in environmental protection could be even more reduced by, for example, requiring environmental contributions (which are then directed by a government body) based on the scale of the development but the development itself will proceed. A system like this would align with the Tinbergen Rule, and may end up being better at protecting the environment.</li>
</ul>