The rock and roll world of town and country planning is, as you know, Readers, fast-paced and ever-changing at the best of times, but it was especially fast-paced and ever-changing in December.
This is an attempt at a recap, with a few initial reflections thrown in.
Planning Reform Working Paper: Planning Committees
On 9 December a working paper was published on welcome proposals to modernise planning committees. The paper puts forward three reforms to “support better decision-making in the planning system”, which are:
- The introduction of a mandatory requirement for training for planning committee members;
- The creation of smaller targeted planning committees specifically for strategic development; and
- The introduction of a national scheme of delegation.
The working paper can be found here and the MHCLG press release can be found here. When this emerged in the press under headlines such as “property developers could bypass planning committees in bid to 'overhaul' process” it might have been reasonably assumed that journalistic licence was being used to make newsworthy something that really should not be newsworthy, but, no, the MHCLG press release itself actually refers to applications ‘bypassing planning committees entirely’, which is a line one imagines civil servants might not have been too happy with given the fairly dry and eminently sensible nature of the proposals (but no media manager worth their salt will want to push something as fairly dry and eminently sensible...).
Mandatory training for councillors is very much in the ‘low-hanging fruit’ category of planning reform. If the training is to be substantive though and if the committee cycle is not to be interrupted post-local elections then this might preclude new councillors from the planning committee for at least a year, which might not actually be a bad thing. The policy paper refers to ‘undertaking’ training being mandatory, but not specifically the passing of a test at the end of it, which would be a good thing.
Committees for strategic development seem uncontentious, subject to, as the paper acknowledges, what strategic development is defined as (a major scheme in Kings Lynn, for example, may not be a major scheme in Kensington) and how many councillors would sit on them. Other questions to consider could be whether members should be the most senior councillors (the Leader and the Portfolio Holder, for example), whether members should be councillors at all (co-opted development specialists, for example) and whether the councillors involved would undertake more specialist training than your workaday planning committee members.
A national scheme of delegation raises much trickier operational questions. Everybody, planner, politician or the public, should accept the case for delegating more to officers where the principle of development has already been established and details are being submitted that are consistent with prior commitments. Opinion will though differ as to how this can be achieved.
Some will say that reserved matters submissions should not go to committee at all, but should there really be no democratic oversight? Perhaps a presumption that reserved matters do not go to committee unless in very exceptional circumstances, with a right for applicants to request determination by committee?
Some will say that applications of a certain scale should not go to committee, but where would that threshold be drawn and, again, should there really be no democratic oversight?
Everybody, or at least all practitioners, seem to accept that subjective definitions like ‘accordance with’ or ‘departure from’ a local plan have no place in a scheme of delegation (please see this Zack Simons blog), so where does that leave us?
As I have written about previously, I am personally minded to support graduated thresholds of objections to applications that get higher depending upon the extent to which the principle of development has been established, but not many other people seem to.
Wherever we end up, fewer applications on allocated sites and fewer reserved matters submissions pursuant to outline permissions should be going to committee, and, in accordance with this letter from Mr Pennycook to the RTPI, the standing of the professional planner should be enhanced.
Not included in the working paper is the case for taking committees online. Interestingly, MHCLG recently consulted on enabling remote attendance and proxy voting at local authority meetings. At least one organisation responded by pointing out that if councillors can attend meetings remotely then the public should be able to too…
The NPPF
On 12 December the NPPF was published. The draft, published in short order back in July, was widely held to be a positive statement of the new Government’s intent. It not just reversed all but one of the December 2023 changes, but sought to grasp hitherto un-grasped nettles, such as a standard method that was not fit for purpose, unmet need arising from major towns and cities, and the Green Belt.
All eyes then, as the updated draft was awaited, were on the numbers, how long it will take LPAs to plan for them, and the ‘golden rules’ to be attached to the new ‘Grey Belt’ designation.
Standard Method
The new standard method will, as consulted on, use 0.8% of existing stock as the baseline. There are though changes to the affordability multiplier that was consulted upon in recognition of the case to make the method more responsive to affordability pressures.
First, the threshold from which the affordability adjustment applies will increase from where affordability is four (so where median house prices are four times median earnings) to five.
Second, the scale of the affordability adjustment is to increase from a multiplier of 0.6 to 0.95.
The overall effect is that housing need is reduced in more affordable areas and increased in areas where affordability issues are most acute, but overall remains around 370,000 nationally and so is arguably neutral for the development industry relative to the consultation version.
Transitional arrangements
It had been considered by Government that a 200 dwellings per annum threshold (between a LPA’s old target and new target) struck the right balance between allowing plans to continue or requiring them to be reworked. In response though to support for a percentage-based threshold, plans at the Regulation 19 stage will be required to meet the new requirements if the draft housing requirement is less than 80% of the new figure. For authorities with plans at examination, where the draft housing requirement meets less than 80% of local housing need the authority will be expected to begin a plan in the new plan-making system as soon as it is brought into force in 2025. The number of authorities below this new threshold is expected to be broadly similar to the number of authorities below that previously proposed.
There are also changes to the timings of the transitional arrangements. Firstly, the NPPF changes relating to plan-making will take effect three months from Planning Reform Day (not one month as proposed). Further, where plans at Regulation 19 need to be revised to account for the revised local lousing need, the expectation for plans to be submitted within 18 months will be extended to December 2026 where LPAs have to do significant additional work (defined as returning to the regulation 18 consultation). All earlier stage plans progressing under this version of the NPPF will be expected to be submitted for examination under the existing 2004 Act system no later than December 2026.
A national ambition for 370,000 is one thing, but actually planning for it is another, and the transitional arrangements were arguably the development industry's most significant area of concern when responding to the consultation version (with the benchmark land value proposals a close second). The adopted proposals actually make it easier for the hitherto recalcitrant plan-makers now rushing plans through to embed a lower number, which is Zack Simon's went as far as to describe the transitional arrangements as his 'Worst Planning Policy of the Year'.
The NPPF does at least acknowledge this issue. Paragraph 78c now states that, from 1 July 2026, for the purposes of decision-making only, where a LPA has a housing requirement adopted in the last five years examined against a previous version of the framework, and whose annual average housing requirement is 80% or less of the most up to date local housing need figure calculated using the standard method, a 20% buffer will be added to it’s land supply. This effectively means that LPA’s that do adopt a plan with a lower number will, in effect, have to demonstrate a rolling six year supply of housing.
In the context of local plan-making, the latest Chief Planners Newsletter makes reference to updated timetables for local plan preparation. It states that “in light of the changes to the NPPF, the Deputy Prime Minister has asked that all LPAs produce an updated Local Development Scheme by no later than 6 March 2025.
Grey Belt and the 'Golden Rules'
A new definition of Grey Belt has been published that seeks to clarify the relationship between Previously Developed Land and other Grey Belt land to ensure that both routes to development provide clear and separate tests.
Grey Belt land is Green Belt land that does not strongly contribute to checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another; or preserving the setting and special character of historic towns. This is a broader definition than that consulted upon in July.
Paragraph 67 of the NPPF states that, as part of the ‘Golden Rules’ for Green Belt development, a specific affordable housing requirement (or requirements) should be set for major development involving the provision of housing, either on land which is proposed to be released from the Green Belt or which may be permitted on land within the Green Belt. This requirement should be set at a higher level than that which would otherwise apply to land which is not within or proposed to be released from the Green Belt, and require at least 50% of the housing to be affordable, unless this would make the development of these sites unviable (when tested in accordance with national planning practice guidance on viability). Explicit reference to the need to consider viability is a positive addition to the policy consulted upon in July.
Paragraph 157 states that, as and until local plan policies for affordable housing are updated to reflect this, the affordable housing contribution required to satisfy the Golden Rules is 15% points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement which would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of 50%. In the absence of a pre-existing requirement for affordable housing, a 50% affordable housing contribution should apply by default.
The significance of the Grey Belt proposition should not be underestimated. “In combination with the new standard method, and the reintroduction of provisions around five-year land supply, the provisions on Grey Belt are a game changer,” as Matthew Spry told Building.“Until the new NPPF, there were 180 planning authorities where green belt release via planning application was impossible in all but the rarest of cases, providing no incentive for many of them to prepare a local plan”, Mr Spry also said.
Just finally to note in relation to Grey Belt, further guidance on Green Belt reviews is to be published this month “to ensure a more consistent approach to the identification of Grey Belt land”.
The Government response to the NPPF consultation
Some further points of note from the material published alongside the NPPF.
Local Nature Recovery Strategies
“…we intend to publish planning practice guidance on Local Nature Recovery Strategies as soon as possible in January 2025. This will further clarify the role of Local Nature Recovery Strategies when it comes to enhancing the Green Belt and provide greater certainty for stakeholders when it comes to the role of Local Nature Recovery Strategies in the planning decision making process and the plan-making system.”
Benchmark Land Value (BLV)
“To make sure that the viability system works to optimise developer contributions, allowing negotiations only where genuinely necessary, the government intends to update viability planning practice guidance. Prior to new viability guidance being published, site specific viability assessment should not be used. As part of the review, government will consider the circumstances in which site-specific viability assessment is allowed, with specific reference to large sites and Previously Developed Land. Overall, the government still believes there is merit in providing more guidance on BLV. However more work is required to review and then implement the approach. The government is therefore considering the treatment of BLV as part of a review into the viability planning practice guidance in 2025.”
Mixed tenure
“The government will take further steps to encourage the delivery of mixed tenure developments “including setting a site size threshold above which sites must deliver a mix of tenures”
Land Use Framework
“The government plans to publish a 12-week consultation on land use early in the New Year. The consultation will inform the development of a Land Use Framework for England, to be published in 2025. This will set out the government’s vision for long-term land use change and focus on the principles for land use decision making and priority areas for policy change.”
This could be something or it could be everything. If it is the spatial expression of how much land is used for what now then it will be interesting. If it is the spatial expression of how much land will be needed for what in the future then it will be very, very interesting and may look something like the first draft of an actual Plan for England.
Energy Standards
“The Government will bring forward future standards next year which will set our new homes and buildings on a path that moves away from relying on volatile fossil fuels and ensures they are fit for a net zero future.”
Fees
“The government have announced their intention to take forward measures in the proposed Planning and Infrastructure Bill to introduce a power for local planning authorities to be able to set their own fees. As part of these proposals, we will conduct a comprehensive review of all national fees in order to establish a robust baseline for full cost recovery of fees and to inform a national default fee.”
Building the homes we need
Mr Pennycook made a statement in the House of Commons to mark the publication of the NPPF. Of note was the introduction of Homes England’s new clearing service to help unblock the delivery of Section 106 affordable housing.
The Minister also confirmed that secondary legislation will be introduced next year to implement powers brought forward under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 to require developers to commit to a build out trajectory upfront and report on delivery against it.
Of note with regard to the latter is a couple of reference’s made by Mr Pennycook when giving evidence to the HCLG Committee on 20 November. In the context of a MP bemoaning unbuilt permissions in his constituency Mr Pennycook said that “the situation is slightly more complicated than the “all developers land bank” narrative that is put out there” and that “there are specific reasons that developers have a pipeline of supply to operate in the current system.” Mr Pennycook also said that “to increase the output of actual homes built you do need to oversupply permissions into the system.”
Given that Mr Pennycook evidently ‘gets it’ some in the development industry may query why Michael Gove’s administratively burdensome build out provisions are being followed through with, but, those that do might be encouraged to see this as a ‘win’ for the Local Government Association to offset the reasons that they had to be cheery over Christmas.
Planning Reform Working Paper: Development and Nature Recovery
On 15 December MHCLG another working paper was published on the Government’s proposed use of funding from development to deliver environmental improvements and moves more responsibility for these improvements onto the state rather than developers. The aim of this approach, it is stated, is to free up and accelerate development while ensuring better environmental outcomes.
It is proposed that a new Nature Restoration Fund underpin actions identified by new Delivery Plans, which would not be a new financial burden (since developers already have to meet the cost of project-specific measures), but rather the fund would streamline the funding process for developers while maximising the environmental impact. This would only not be a new financial burden if was less than the cost of project-specific measures and applicants are likely to prefer an either or.
More broadly, there is a sense of resignation that Government has accepted the principle that the development industry pays to remedy issues not of its making. The case could and should be made though that, for example, nutrient harm arising from the failings of water companies and the subsequent cost of mitigation is one that should be borne by society rather than, for example, housebuilding alone.
There is also perhaps a risk that, having constructed a process to address, for example, nutrient neutrality, Natural England might see it as a licence to identify and address other environmental issues (water neutrality and air quality, for example), which would most emphatically rub up against hopes for significantly boosting housing supply.
English Devolution White Paper
On 16 December a white paper was published that includes details of how the commitment to a “universal system of strategic planning” will be achieved. All areas, both those with a new Strategic Authority and those without, will be required to develop new Spatial Development Strategies (SDS) over a strategic geography and within a defined timeframe. The ambition is for universal coverage by the end of the Parliament term.
The document states that the Government wants to move quickly on strategic planning. “This means that where no ‘Strategic Authority’ is in place or is planned to be in place, the Government will take a power through the forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill to direct defined groupings of upper-tier county councils, unitary councils, and in some cases ‘Foundation Strategic Authorities’ to deliver SDS.”
Swings. Local government reorganisation and the reintroduction of effective strategic planning. Roundabouts. Plan-making in the meantime.
Compulsory Purchase Process and Compensation Reforms
On 19 December a consultation was published seeking views on a range of proposals “aimed at implementing technical reforms to make the compulsory purchase process quicker, lower costs of the process, and ensure the compensation rules are fairer.”
One of the proposals is an alternative approach to allowing land to be compulsorily purchased without hope value through the issuing of directions. The Government is considering whether a general power could be introduced that would enable the Secretary of State in England or the Welsh Ministers in Wales to make a direction to remove hope value from the assessment of compensation for a specific category of sites where justified in the public interest. Such sites could include brownfield land in built-up areas with no extant planning permission and land allocated in an adopted plan but which has not come forward.
The proposed reforms are purportedly to make the compulsory purchase process “cheaper, quicker and fairer”.
Quicker? Yes, of course, and the majority of the consultation is given over to technical changes that that will no doubt make this so.
Cheaper and fairer? Labour’s manifesto promised “steps to ensure that for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission” so we very quickly stray into the politics of land value capture and “landbanking' as well (see above).
The proponents of this proposition should be encouraged undertake an appraisal of the benefits and the risks. Is the value to be captured really what they think it is (see this Lichfields blog on the BLV proposals within the NPPF consultation)? How is the inevitable subsequent land strike consistent with Mr Pennycook’s desire to oversupply permissions (see this Philip Barnes blog on the lessons from history).
A blog by Nikita Sellers and Raj Gupta at Town Legal was quick to highlight the key point.
“This seems to be targeting “land banking” – the concept that landowners delay development on land with planning permission in the hope of improved future market conditions (the assertion that land banking is delaying delivery of housing is contested by many – see for example, Matthew Spry’s analysis). We foresee several issues with these proposals, namely why would a landowner invest a huge amount of money in promoting a site through a local plan only to know that, if it does not progress with the scheme immediately and even if the site is allocated, there is a risk of compulsory purchase without the ability for the landowner to claim compensation for the prospect of planning permission being granted?”
More practically, once a site has secured an allocation then it would be valued on the basis of it’s allocated use such that ‘hope value’ would be limited anyway. Would the state step in to purchase that farmland, for example, at genuine agricultural land value way ahead of a local plan process and promote it at the state’s own risk (see another Lichfields blog).
CPO is complicated because it should be complicated and it so it should very much be viewed as a tool of last resort for acquiring the last piece of a transformational jigsaw. CPO will not deliver 1.5 million new homes.
Some further suggested reading and viewing
Housing Delivery Test
Alongside the NPPF MHCLG published the 2023 Housing Delivery Test, which considers housing delivery in the three years between April 2020 and March 2023 against the total number of homes required over the same period (minus four months in 2020/21 to account for the disruption caused by the pandemic).
According to Lichfields, the number of authorities ‘failing the test’ (i.e. being subject to some form of consequence) has risen over the last three years, from 29% of LPAs in 2021 to 35% in 2023. This includes 9% of LPAs now facing the application of a 20% buffer to the assessment of housing land supply, which, when taken alongside the revisions to the standard methodology, will increase the number of LPA that will now be subject to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
House of Lords Built Environment Committee – Grey Belt Inquiry
On 18 December 2024 Mr Pennycook gave evidence to this inquiry, saying that Grey Belt housing delivery will be “meaningful but not significant”.
Right. I think that is just about everything.
“It’s an exciting time to be a planner”, wrote Matthew Pennycook in his letter to the RTPI. Isn’t it just.
Comments
Post a Comment