Amongst very many things of interest in Savills’ recent ‘Spotlight on Planning 2025’, this section will be of particular interest to anybody promoting land through a local plan that is either at or is heading towards examination.
When the new NPPF was introduced in late December 2024, local authorities (LAs) could, under certain conditions, take advantage of a transition period which allowed them to progress emerging Local Plans under the previous framework. Faced with an average increase in housing targets of c.80% under the revised standard method, many LPAs had a significant incentive to accelerate the process.
By the time the 12th March deadline arrived, 47 LPAs had submitted plans for examination under the previous version of the NPPF, and a further 23 had published Regulation 19 plans, suggesting many authorities were indeed keen to take advantage of the arrangements.
Those publishing Regulation 19 plans would be allowed to progress their emerging plans if their emerging housing target was at least 80% of the new Standard Method requirement. Only 7 of the 21 authorities met this threshold, however, meaning that the remaining Regulation 19 plans will require further revision before submission for examination.
First things first. It is really rather striking that only 7 LPAs meet the 80% requirement. Are those in question deliberately cocking a snook at the Government? Are they insouciantly thumbing their nose at the Inspectorate? Would they, nay should they, pass a ‘gateway test’?
Second things second. To what extent can we expect those plans to be subject to ‘further revision’?
A year ago the answer to that question might have been more emphatic. Readers may recall Matthew Pennycook’s ‘pragmatism’ letter to PINS, which highlighted the increasing length of time it has been taking to progress local plans through examination (65 weeks on average in 2016 to 134 weeks in 2022). The pragmatic approach, the Minister asserted, "has perversely led to years of delays to local plan examinations without a guarantee that they will be found sound, and this has to end". The letter sought to empower Inspectors to be able to "make tough decisions that are required at examination and focus their time on plans that can be made sound". The effect of the letter was been immediate. Solihull, Elmbridge, North Lincolnshire, Shropshire and Bedford swiftly saw substandard plans kicked in to touch.
One cannot help but wonder though whether this litany of local plan failure, layered on top of which has come even more high profile brouhahas such as that in Mid-Sussex, is a “good look” for all concerned.
Rather then than having the plugged pulled, or being subject to lengthy reconstructive surgery, one cannot also help but wonder whether our old friend ‘the early review’ will find renewed favour during this choppy period between a failed local plan system and a brave new local plan system (with, let us not forget, Spatial Development Strategies and local government reorganisation thrown into the mix for good measure as well).
Early reviews divide opinion around the local plan examination. For some, perhaps minded to see ‘any plan as better than no plan’, they are a practical and pragmatic response to whatever issue of the day cannot yet be fully grappled with. For others, perhaps of a more tired and cynical persuasion, early reviews allow a can to be kicked a little further down the road.
A further frustration for those that end up having to accept an early review policy is that more often than not they have no ‘bite’ in that there is never any material sanction upon a LPA that promises to tackle whatever issue of the day cannot yet be fully grappled with, but never does.
Such eventualities make the compelling case for a standard, robust, early review mechanism, which the LPDF (the voice of the land, planning and development sector) has drafted and is inviting interesting parties to coalesce around. The draft policy is as follows.
Policy [XX]: Local Plan Early Review
The Council must commence production of a comprehensive new Local Plan which must be formally submitted for Examination within 30 months of the adoption date of this Plan
If the new Local Plan is not submitted in accordance with the timeframe set out within this policy, then this Plan shall be considered to be out-of-date and the Council’s housing land supply shall immediately be calculated using Local Housing Need derived from the Standard Method.
Housing
Based upon a robust evidence base, (informed by, inter alia, the use of a SHLAA / call for sites process, Green Belt review (as appropriate), and brownfield register), the new Local Plan must contain policies which meet the minimum local housing requirement for the entire Local Planning Authority Area in accordance with the NPPF as well as addressing any identified shortfall that has arisen since the adoption of this Plan.
The Council must publish an updated five-year housing land supply position by no later than 1 July (each monitoring year) to provide clear evidence of the progress and implementation of sites allocated in this plan.
Employment
The Council must undertake an Employment Land Needs Assessment as part of the evidence base for the new Local Plan
The new Local Plan must make allocations sufficient to meet the identified need for employment floorspace or demonstrate how that need can be met elsewhere.
Other Evidence
The Council will ensure that the new Local Plan is informed by an up-to-date evidence base prepared in line with Government policy and statutory requirements.
Duration
The new Local Plan will be prepared to ensure it covers a minimum period of 15 years from the date of its adoption.
It is to be hoped that, at the other end of the local government reorganisation tunnel and in the bright, brave new world of Spatial Development Strategies and a 30 month local plan process, cans will never need to be kicked a little further down the road, but such a standard early review policy might assist in the meantime...
Comments
Post a Comment