Consultation closes on 15 April on DCLG’s 60-plus page ‘
Technical consultation on implementation of planning changes’, launched today.
Views are sought on how the government should implement the planning clauses in the
Housing and Planning Bill, alongside some other related measures. DCLG is particularly interested in consultees’ ‘ideas’.
The consultation exercise will inform the various pieces of secondary legislation that are to be prepared after the Bill has passed into law – and changes to national Planning Practice Guidance too, no doubt.
Of particular interest, here are the details being put forward by government for:
Permission in principle and local authority registers
1. Permission in principle (PIP): with no direct emphasis on PIPs being for housing or housing-led developments, the Bill already contains much of the
detail on this new form of ‘outline’ permission, that has to be followed by a ‘technical details consent’ (TDC) for development to go ahead. Aiming to give more certainty earlier in the planning process, with the principles of development established once and for all, views are now being sought on everything to do with how PIPs will work in practice, including:
a. the ‘qualifying documents’ that can grant PIPs on allocation – DCLG says these should be ‘future’ local and neighbourhood plans, and brownfield registers (no explanation of the term ‘future’ is given)
b. PIP on application – only for minor development
c. a PIP’s ’in principle matters’ – DCL G proposes that the ‘prescribed particulars’ would be:
i. a red line plan showing the ‘location and parameters of the site’ (including ‘essential infrastructure provision’)
ii. the uses (any that would ‘form part of a housing-led development’)
iii. ‘the amount of residential development’
d. sensitive areas – it is currently proposed that LPAs would be able decide if a PIP is appropriate, or not, for a site that has to be considered in relation to EU Directives. But then the council would have to undertake strategic environment assessment/ appropriate assessment/ environmental impact assessment screening itself.
e. involvement of the community and others – development plan consultations are seen to suffice for PIPs in ‘qualifying documents’, while for others, consultation arrangements would be as for planning applications. But it is of note that LPAs would not be obliged to consult on TDC applications – they will be able to choose the extent of consultation at this stage.
f. information requirements – for a PIP, all that would be required would be a form, a site plan and a fee (not yet specified). For a TDC, again there would be a form, plus ‘plans and drawings’ and again, a fee; the only two other sets of information required with a TDC application would be a design statement (‘including layout, access and architectural details’), and an impact statement (including any required assessments and mitigation measures).
g. durations of PIPs and TDs – a PIP in a plan allocation or on a register would last 5 years from plan adoption/ being formally placed on the register; on application, the options put forward are that a PIP could expire after 1 or 3 years. A TDC would have a 3 year time limit.
h. maximum determination periods – these are suggested as 5 weeks for a PIP minor application, and 5/ 10 weeks respectively for minor/ major site TDCs.
2. Brownfield registers to be maintained by LPAs: these will be on-line and of a standard format, containing all sites and including any that have current applications running/ a local development order under preparation, that have either a PIP or planning permission, or that are covered by local development order already.
The only information given for each site placed on the register would be: its address; grid reference; size; ‘an estimate of the number of homes that the site would be likely to support’ (stated as a range); planning status; and ownership (if known). LPAs will only be ‘expected’ and not required to include site constraints and history.
The government is expecting that councils will only reject potential sites, ‘if they can demonstrate that there is no realistic prospect of sites being suitable for new housing’. It is also expected that ‘the majority’ of register sites will be granted a PIP and then TDC for housing, unless for example there is a planning application or local development order ‘in the pipeline’, or there are environmental impacts or habitats issues making a planning application more appropriate.
The starting point for an LPA in preparing a brownfield register will be to identify suitable sites from its (up to date) strategic housing land availability assessment, and to issue a call for sites if necessary too. There will be national criteria in Regulations to ensure that sites placed on the register are suitable for housing; these will include regard having to be had to the National Planning Policy Framework and national Planning Practice Guidance, and the local plan – note that if a site is allocated for another use in an up to date plan, ‘it is unlikely that the site would be regarded as suitable for housing’. ‘Suitable for housing’ still means ‘available’, and also, capable of supporting 5 or more houses/ more than 0.25 ha., and capable of development i.e. ‘suitable’ and ‘free from constraints that cannot be mitigated’.
Sites falling under the EIA Regulations may even be included on the registers as suitable for PIPs, if the LPA determines themselves that EIA is not required (DCLG is still considering if/when/ how councils may also have to undertake strategic environmental assessment of the registers).
Once a council has a list of potentially suitable sites for the register, this has to be consulted on – likewise consultation would have to be undertaken on sites being proposed for PIPs.
As for keeping the registers up to date, a review of sites is expected ‘at least once a year’ – for updating those already on the register and collecting new ones.
Government measures to ensure that 90% of suitable brownfield sites have housing permissions by 2020 mean that councils not making sufficient progress against this objective e.g. via a register could find that they will be unable to state they have an up to date 5 year housing land supply when determining applications for brownfield development with the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development then applying.
3. Another type of LPA register – small sites: being promoted as being especially useful in areas where there is high demand for self and custom-build housing, these registers would be for sites just for 1 to 4 plots. There would be no ‘suitability’ test for sites being placed on the register – and therefore no guarantee of permission – the aim is to increase awareness of their location.
