Planning matters

London’s rapidly increasing population will soon outstrip its historic peak of 8.61 million in 1939. It is anticipated that by 2036, the population could reach 10 million. The associated difficulty of building enough homes to accommodate another 1.5 million people is a well-recognised and rehearsed rhetoric and is set to be one of the key battlegrounds of London’s impending Mayoral Election in May 2016.

The Mayor’s Design Advisory Group (MDAG) recently launched ‘Growing London’, the first of four strategic papers comprising its ‘Good Growth Agenda’. This paper seeks to address the question of what shape a future London will take, where people will live, and how we can balance high densities with good quality design.

A key recommendation is the importance of planning to absorb the majority of growth within London’s boundaries, constrained within the parameters set by an extensive Green Belt. The need to develop more densely, within the context of the existing urban fabric, is emphasised.

At the heart of this approach is the London Plan’s density matrix. As outlined by my colleague Malcolm Hockaday, this sets out indicative density ranges according to public transport infrastructure (PTAL) and setting (‘suburban’, ‘urban’, or ‘central’). Whilst a useful tool for planners when assessing particular schemes, it can be argued that the density matrix provides a limited understanding of a place’s capacity for a particular density; PTAL alone is a relatively crude measure and setting categories are inherently subjective. As such, ‘Growing London’ suggests other, more nuanced measures should be introduced to reflect the complexities of London.

The GLA has previously indicated that its density guidance is intended to be interpreted with flexibility rather than mechanistically and should not represent an artificial upper limit inhibiting otherwise acceptable development. To this end, ‘Growing London’ recognises that nearly half of all development proposed last year and over a quarter of London’s development pipeline is above the thresholds set out in the matrix.  MDAG therefore recommends that policies are updated and research undertaken to better understand the challenges and opportunities of building at densities higher than the top range of 405 units per hectare.

It is clear from the above comment that delivering large numbers of new homes with more limited land availability is resulting in a new generation of high density developments. One example is the new masterplan for the Greenwich Peninsula, which NLP secured planning permission for in September 2015. 12,678 residential units are to be delivered on this 80 hectare site, with an average density of 425 units per hectare; the proposal for residential intensification was strongly supported by the GLA.

The City and the area surrounding Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park are also undergoing considerable regeneration, with a number of tall buildings emerging. Goodmans Fields, Turnberry Quay, 150 High Street  and Icona are all NLP projects that we helped to secure planning permission for.

Yet, when put into context with historic densities and with other global cities, London’s density remains comparatively low.  London’s peak residential density of 271 people per hectare is less than a third of that in New York and less than one sixth of Hong Kong’s.  The average density in Paris, which is perhaps a better comparator for London, stands at 21,500 people per km², which is higher than the peak measured for London of 17,324.

This is not an argument in itself that London should become denser. However, it is clear that development is spreading upwards rather than outwards as there is increasingly nowhere else for it to go; Green Belt and high land values are, at least in part, forcing our hand. Planning has a crucial role to play in balancing the need to support higher densities in appropriate locations to deliver more and better homes against the need to protect people and places from over development and urban sprawl. Should the new Mayor wish to expedite a review of the London Plan, this will provide a window to draw upon the recommendations of the ‘Good Growth Agenda’. It will be interesting to see the extent to which, if at all, the current and arguably limiting and simplistic density policies and density matrix are reformed.

As set out in one of the recent series of NLP blogs covering DCLG’s “Housing and Planning Bill Update: technical consultation on implementation of planning changes (and some other measures)”, the government is currently consulting on development management changes that largely relate to the content of secondary legislation for implementing the planning clauses in the Housing and Planning Bill.

One measure proposed is that, in addition to the ‘local financial considerations’ currently taken into account in decision-taking, an officer’s report to committee must estimate the amounts accruing to any local authority via, inter alia, Council Tax, New Homes Bonus, Business Rate revenue, and Section 106, if a development were to proceed.

Despite changes to Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) to make clear that local finance considerations may be cited in planning committee reports, DCLG remains concerned that potential financial benefits are not being fully set out publicly in planning committee reports. The consultation highlights that:

“The potential financial benefits of planning applications are not always set out fully in public during the course of the decision making process, particularly for larger, more significant or controversial applications…This has a negative impact on local transparency and prevents local communities from both understanding the full benefits that development can bring...” (Paragraph 9.1)

In response, The Housing and Planning Bill proposes to place a duty on local planning authorities to ensure that planning reports record details of financial benefits that are likely to accrue to an area as a result of a proposed development.

This reflects the NPPF which is clear that supporting economic growth is a fundamental priority for central government and local authorities.

With this in mind, using NLP’s eVALUATE framework for assessing the economic benefits of development, we have reviewed the key economic benefits that will result from the 17,000 new homes that NLP secured planning permission for in 2015.

The social benefits of delivering much needed housing are clear and widely publicised. However new housing also delivers significant economic benefits including jobs, additional spending in the local economy and an increase to local authority revenue. It is only right that these are properly considered in the planning balance by the decision-maker.

NLP’s eVALUATE model accurately calculates and effectively articulates the economic benefits of new development and is an essential tool for fulfilling the Government’s intention of helping communities to understand the full benefits of new development.

4 MARCH 2015 UPDATE: As anticipated, the amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill described below were agreed to and incorporated on 3 March 2015 at the 3^rd sitting of Committee Stage in the House of Lords.  During proceedings the Lords pressed Baroness Williams of Trafford to confirm the date for the government’s forthcoming consultation on starter homes regulations.  Baroness Williams said that she could not confirm a date, but it would be ‘in the next few weeks’.

Most of the proposed amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill 2015-16 to be moved at Committee Stage in the Lords (starting next week) have been proposed by Liberal Democrat, Labour or Cross Bench Members of the House of Lords and are unlikely to succeed as Bill changes.

However, we would like to draw your attention to starter homes amendments published yesterday and proposed by Baroness Williams of Trafford, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

These additions to the Bill are much more likely to be agreed to and incorporated.

In short, the amendments would require the government to consult councils and communities on any proposed changes to be made (via Regulations) to the starter homes’ price caps (set in the Bill as £450,000 inside London and £250,000 elsewhere).

Otherwise, the proposed Bill amendments would allow the government to:

• change the definition of ‘first time buyers’, with no limitations;
• define when a starter home can be purchased jointly, with not everyone being under 40; and
• change any aspect of the Bill’s starter homes content via Regulations (i.e. primary legislation would not be required).

Here are the details of the new clauses (new text in bold and quotes):

1. Clause 2 sub-clause 7:

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations –

“(a)” amend the definition of “first-time buyer”

NLP comment: the ‘specified categories of people’ referred to in sub-clause (7)(b) are not defined.  It is possible that it would include ‘Protected Groups’, against which it illegal to discriminate.  Proposed sub-clause (7)(c) might allow ‘the Bank of Mum and Dad’, for example, to be named as joint purchasers (and we think this is the most likely objective, taking into account the lack of affordability of starter homes that has been argued by many stakeholders). But its scope could be much wider and intended to include e.g. older partners.

2. New sub-clause at the end of Clause 2   

NLP comment: we believe this new sub-clause is intended to respond to criticisms of the imposition of the starter homes price caps that are in the Bill and it also allowing central government to change them at any time through Regulations, without further consultation.

3. A second new sub-clause at the end of Clause 2

NLP comment:  this addition to the Bill would allow any aspect of the starter homes chapter of the Bill to be amended by Regulations

Please contact our Policy & Law team if you have any queries.

There are significant changes being made to development management in Wales that will shortly come into force. These however only form one component of a wider overhaul of the planning system including the Planning (Wales) Act 2015.

The message from First Minister Carl Sergeant at the launch of the draft Bill was clear - “it is about ensuring that planning helps to deliver the growth and jobs that we need”. Whilst I wholeheartedly support this proposition, a key aspect that appears to be missing is that the growth that is sought needs to be delivered in a timely manner. This is a key issue, highlighted by the Planning Performance Framework issued by Welsh Government in February 2016. I am currently working on a proposed major urban extension for approximately 7,000 homes in Cardiff and it is disconcerting to know that the average time taken to determine major applications in Cardiff in 2015 was over 1 year.

I can therefore appreciate and endorse the rationale behind the development management changes, but question whether the amendments will in fact deliver a more effective planning regime or simply serve to introduce additional delay to delivering much needed development.

One of the key amendments concerning pre-application consultation comes into force on 16 March 2016, albeit only outline and full major applications submitted on or after 1 August 2016 would need to be in accordance with the new Regulations in order to be validated. Applicants, in addition to erecting site notices of their intention to seek planning permission, will need to notify adjoining owners and occupiers in advance of their proposals. Likewise, community and specialist consultees, which include the relevant statutory consultees, will need to be notified. A full copy of the application documents will have to be made available to the community and consultees for a minimum of 28 days and a pre-application consultation report must form part of the planning application, demonstrating that the pre-application consultation requirements have been met and that the issues raised have been addressed.

The benefits of undertaking consultation prior to submission of a planning application are well-documented and formalising this procedure in Wales is not ground-breaking. To a certain degree, pre-application consultation is already carried out by many developers across Wales, in the form of informal discussions with statutory consultees in developing proposals, as well as through community exhibitions. The legal requirement to carry out pre-application consultation only after application documents have been completed would appear to be somewhat counter-productive – shouldn’t consultation with stakeholders at an early stage inform the evolution of a proposal?

There are of course additional measures that are coming into force, to speed up the effectiveness of the pre-application consultation process. Statutory consultees will need to provide a substantive response within 21 days and their response during determination should not deviate from their original comments. This is clearly a very helpful tool in engaging with statutory consultees. But it does raise the question of whether developer engagement in informal pre-app discussions at the outset of projects will now be largely ignored, in order to focus the limited resources that do exist on this new statutory duty.

All local planning authorities (LPAs) will need to provide a written pre-application advice service from 16 March onwards. There will be a national standardised fee schedule for this service and LPAs will need to respond within 21 days. For major applications (defined as 10 to 24 dwellings/ 1,000sq m - 1,999sq m) the requisite fee is to be £600, increasing to £1,000 for large, major applications (25 or more dwellings / 2,000sq m+). I for one welcome this particular change, in the light of pre-application responses that have failed to materialise despite the payment of significant fees. I do consider that the rules governing pre-application changes could have gone further though, and stipulated that the Officer’s Report at determination stage should be substantially in accordance with the LPA’s pre-application response.

A welcome change is that Design and Access Statements (DAS) will only be necessary for major applications, except those involving mining operations, s73 applications and applications for a material change in use of land or buildings. DAS will also be required for development in conservation areas and World Heritage Sites for proposals involving one or more dwellings or floorspace of 100sq m or more.

Also new is that in the event of a dispute regarding validation, LPAs will need to notify the applicant as to why their application is not considered valid. The applicant may appeal the non-validation to the Welsh Government with 2 weeks of receipt of the notice. The Welsh Government will then need to reach a determination within 21 days. If the appeal is allowed, the application is registered as valid.

A further change will be the requirement for developers benefiting from planning permission for major development to notify the LPA that they intend to commence development. This will apply to decision notices issued after the 16 March 2016.

Amendments to major applications post-submission will trigger an additional fee of £190 and for all applications, an extension of 4 weeks to the target determination period.

Overall, NLP welcomes the principles of the new post-application rules in this round of development management changes, as it appears that once an application is in the system there are carrot and stick measures to reduce the time it will take to reach a determination. However, there are additional planning hurdles for developers proposed that lie outside of the formal determination period which are likely to result in additional delays. Overall, it remains to be seen whether or not the changes will deliver any real benefits to the growth agenda, and importantly whether they speed delivery.

NLP will be preparing a series of blogs that cover the detail of some of the wide-ranging changes to development management in Wales, including the 2016 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.

NLP is also giving a series of presentations on the above changes, tailored to focus on their implications for projects. If you would like us to present to you, or you simply wish to discuss the changes, then please do get in touch with Helen Ashby-Ridgway or me.