Planning matters

The publication of the revised BRE Report (BR 209) in June 2022 caught most planning authorities by surprise and highlighted a need for guidance and training on daylight and sunlight matters amongst Planning Officers. Lichfields received requests for, and provided, CPD sessions to Planning Officers within Local Planning Authorities across the UK, the Greater London Authority and the Planning Inspectorate along, alongside requests from architects and developers. These sessions, particularly those with Planning Officers, created opportunities to discuss the practical application of the new guidance. Outside of the need to understand the revisions, CPD sessions allowed officers to voice their frequent concerns regarding reliance on reports supporting developments. These concerns were in some instances drawn with reference to the ‘Rainbird’ ([2018] EWHC 657) and ‘Guerry’ ([2018] EWHC 2899) cases, where planning permission was quashed by the courts due to errors and misleading statements within the daylight and sunlight reporting. What was clear was a need to be able to provide clear and robust guidance for committee members that Planning Officers had confidence in presenting. Amongst Planning Officers and committee members there can be a distrust of daylight and sunlight reports, particularly where they contain little interpretation of data or discussion where transgressions are noted other than assurances that these are ‘typical’. The revisions created significant confusion within a field that was already seen on the whole as a bit of a ‘dark art’. The realisation that the revisions did not impact on the tests applied to neighbouring properties was mostly treated with relief. However, the changes regarding how proposed dwellings should be tested emphasised the many misconceptions and preconceptions held by those required to draw conclusions from analysis undertaken by others. Discussions on the new methodologies highlighted the limitations vertical sky component and no sky line testing pose in judging perceived daylight within rooms with the general refrain being ‘but what does it mean?’ Discussions on the new assessment methods centred on which of the new daylight tests (Daylight Factor and Spatial Daylight Autonomy - Illuminance) is the preferred test and confusion over whether both are required. It was clear that, if presented correctly, the illuminance method was more relatable to personal experience than the daylight factor method. There were also concerns and misconceptions that the daylight factor method was the same as the average daylight factor method previously used. The new guidance also introduces the UK Annex, a new testing metric for ‘hard to light’ dwellings. This element of BS EN 17037 introduces UK only daylight targets which are aimed at properties where daylight access is restricted due to location and external limiting factors such as existing tree cover or within basement rooms. There is confusion over the use of the UK Annex and the alternative targets given. The BRE Report states that the UK Annex gives minimum recommendations for habitable rooms in the UK but also states the targets are intended for ‘hard to light’ dwellings. As such, reliance on the UK annex targets was not considered to be appropriate in all cases - can rooms at the upper stories of proposed tall buildings really be considered as ‘hard to light’. Reliance on the UK Annex alone, without justification, was seen as another element that generated distrust of daylight and sunlight reports. Looking back through discussion notes the received commentary can be summarised as follows: Are the new standards harder to achieve? Concern over manipulation of the results and how they are presented, How do the new methodologies tally with ‘appropriate’ daylight and sunlight arguments? What factors are in the control of officers to improve results? Is the UK Annex an appropriate target? The need to present all results clearly with supporting justification where necessary. Overall, the changes, once understood, were welcomed. There is a need to ensure that all analysis is presented clearly and, where necessary, relevant justification for deviations is discussed. There is an element of distrust of daylight and sunlight reports and more planning authorities will be seeking third party reviews of submitted analysis. The Lichfields team is being approached far more frequently than previously by planning officers to undertake such reviews. The revisions to the BRE Report present an opportunity to provide greater design input as schemes progress. There is an opportunity to tie assessments into other design concerns such as overheating and sustainability and a greater co-operation between consultants should become the norm. Again, the opportunity for early daylight and sunlight analysis to inform the design process and a more collaborative cross-disciplinary approach to natural light and other disciplines is to be welcomed. It is also clear that, while the testing of impacts on neighbours has not changed, there needs to be greater clarity and justification when presenting effects to assist Planning Officers and Committee Members. Use of illuminance and the revised sunlighting testing provides analysis results and imagery that are more easily grasped by the lay person. They show that there needs to be an educational element to reports and liaison with officers if support for a scheme is to be obtained. The Lichfields Neighbourly Matters team has become adept at running the new testing methods, informing the design process and presenting results in a clear and accessible manner. We strongly advocate early inclusion of daylight and sunlight testing in the design and pre-application processes to help de-risk projects. Taking design teams and Planning Officers through the testing journey, explaining the new guidance and interpreting daylight and sunlight results with clarity promotes assurance in the final design, secures trust from Officers and allows schemes to be presented confidently at committee.

Today’s Spring Budget was, very deliberately, intended to be a fairly quiet affair (to the frustration of some Conservative MPs). In Whitehall circles it was already being referred to as the ‘placeholder’ budget – coming in the aftermath of last Autumn’s disastrous mini-Budget which left limited fiscal bandwidth for major new spending decisions, and preceding an Autumn Budget when the Chancellor might be hoping that conditions will have improved sufficiently to allow some pre-election good news announcements. The Chancellor’s preparations had been prefaced by some brighter economic news, namely that 1) a recession has (so far) been avoided and the latest Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast indicates this will continue to be the case for 2023 as a whole, and, 2) the UK government deficit this year proving to be smaller than was originally expected. Jeremy Hunt seized on this news early in his speech to say the economy was “proving the doubters wrong”. However, some perspective is needed on both these points. First, in the three months to January, the UK’s monthly GDP figures were +0.15%, -0.55% and +0.28% respectively according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) – technically avoiding a recession, but the statistical equivalent of not much happening – and the OBR forecast for 2023 still shows the economy shrinking by -0.2% this year (albeit a big upgrade from -1.4% in last November’s forecast) just not necessarily within two consecutive quarters. The OBR then expects GDP growth to pick up to 1.8% in 2024 and 2.5% in 2025 as interest rates start to fall and drops in energy and other prices take inflation below the 2% target, but it has also slightly downgraded the mid-term growth figures for 2025, 2026 and 2027. Second, while the OBR estimates the budget deficit this year to be £25 billion lower than expected, this is due to a somewhat temporary mix of higher tax receipts and lower spending (mainly reflecting the lower international gas prices and consequent reduced cost of the energy price guarantee scheme). The Chancellor has opted to use about two-thirds of this ‘gain’ to finance the Budget headline measures announced today – namely providing more support with energy bills and business investment, and measures to boost the labour supply. The effect of these will be to see borrowing levels increase again in overall terms mainly during the next three years, but meanwhile making few inroads to reducing government debt levels as a proportion of GDP. Taken together, there was – perhaps unsurprisingly – a sense of incremental measures to address some of the main short term challenges where the public finances will allow for it, but few expansive interventions or any real sense of a comprehensive long-term plan. Business groups which have been calling for some form of game-changing stimulus measures to level up the UK with what’s being offered by the Inflation Reduction Act in the US or the EU’s Green Industrial Deal Plan, will be left disappointed. However, the full expensing capital allowance for 2023-26 will be welcomed as a means to incentivise firms to bring forward investment and thereby giving a much-needed boost to the level of business investment in the next few years. Beyond these national measures, the Chancellor was keen to remind us about the government’s commitment to levelling up and promoting local growth and there were some important announcements in this regard. First, and after much speculation, the government is calling time on the network of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) that were first introduced in 2011. LEPs have arguably been on borrowed time since the government's LEP Review concluded in March 2022, and government now intends to consult on withdrawing their funding and transferring responsibilities to local government from April 2024. The premise is that putting local economic development policy in the hands of democratically-elected local leaders will mean they can act more flexibly and innovatively, responding to local needs and driving growth for their citizens. That may be all well intended, but the reality is that the resources and budgets available to many local authority economic development teams have been significantly scaled back during the past decade, so significant investment will be required to rebuild capacity. In this context, a third round of the Levelling Up Fund will proceed as planned later in 2023 with a further £1 billion being made available. Alongside this, 20 new ‘Levelling Up Partnerships’ to be created in areas[1] most in need of levelling up will provide over £400 million of investment for "bespoke place-based regeneration" running until March 2025. Apportionment of this investment will be made on a case-by-case basis. Second, Liz Truss’ ill-fated Investment Zones policy makes a return – even if in name only. While originally ‘hundreds’ of zones were envisaged, today’s Budget confirmed just 12 locations including 4 across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will now be subject to detailed appraisal for new Zones, with a “refocused” policy on productivity, universities and key growth sectors. These will have access to a single 5-year tax offer (matching that in Freeports), consisting of enhanced rates of Capital Allowance, Structures and Buildings Allowance, and relief from Stamp Duty Land Tax, Business Rates and Employer National Insurance Contributions – but notably no mention this time of special planning powers or additional flexibilities. Local partners will be able to choose the number and size of tax sites, within a £80 million envelope, up to a maximum of 3 sites totalling no more than 600 hectares. The locations in England are within the proposed East Midlands Mayoral Combined County Authority, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, the proposed North East Mayoral Combined Authority, South Yorkshire, Tees Valley, West Midlands and West Yorkshire. Third, the Budget confirmed further support to ensure ‘nutrient neutrality’ obligations can be efficiently delivered, thereby reducing the risks facing developers building homes in affected areas. DLUHC will shortly launch a call for evidence from local planning authorities, backed by a commitment to provide funding for high quality, locally-led nutrient mitigation schemes. Where high quality proposals are identified, government has indicated that it will provide funding to support clearer routes for housing developers to deliver ‘nutrient neutral’ sites using ‘credits’. Given the challenges this issue has already created in terms of housing delivery across large parts of the country – see for example our earlier analysis on the five-year housing land supply and economic growth implications – definitive solutions can’t come soon enough for the housebuilding industry. Finally, and on the subject of housing, the OBR forecast shows house prices are forecast to fall (largely driven by higher mortgage rates) and not recover to current levels until 2027/28. This is consistent with the latest indicators from Halifax and Nationwide house price indices which show prices already starting to fall. Source: OBR (2023) / Lichfields analysis The OBR also expects house building levels to fall, in contrast with the pre-Covid trend growth, the 2026/27 rate is set to be 8% lower than 2022/23 and 18% lower than pre-Covid in 2019/20. The average rate for 2023/24 – 2027/28 is forecast to be 239,700 net additional dwellings a year. Source: OBR (2023) / Lichfields analysis Image credit: @hmtreasury via Twitter [1] Local areas to be invited to form partnerships include: City of Kingston upon Hull, Sandwell, Mansfield, Middlesbrough, Blackburn with Darwen, Hastings, Torbay, Tendring, Stoke-on-Trent, Boston, Redcar and Cleveland, Wakefield, Oldham, Rother, Torridge, Walsall, Doncaster, South Tyneside, Rochdale, and Bassetlaw.