Having been introduced and had its
First Reading in the House of Commons in early September, the
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (the Bill) had its
Second Reading yesterday - the very first day after recess (10 October).
What effectively is the first testing ground for the ‘new’ Government’s ambitions on housing and planning - the Bill is the first to be
introduced by ‘new’ Communities Secretary Sajid Javid and Housing and Planning Minister Gavin Barwell - the Bill’s debate in the Commons proved to be a good opportunity for MPs to highlight the pros and cons of new plans for boosting housing supply and delivery.
A very interesting point raised by the Secretary of State (SoS) during the debate relates to his position on the
recommendations of the
Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG),
submitted to the ‘old’ regime in March this year. Specifically, the SoS agrees with the ‘central thrust’ of the Group’s recommendations – he has highlighted the need to ensure that ‘more plans [are] put in place. I want all areas to have one’. LPEG recommended various new local plan-making measures requiring primary legislation: Javid has now confirmed that the Bill might be used ‘should primary legislation be required’. He has also stressed the importance of cooperation, joint planning and different tiers of government working together, saying that changes to national policy and guidance ‘can and should’ be made for implementing these and other recommendations made by the Group.
Otherwise, and as Teresa Pearce (Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) pointed out, the Bill ‘does not appear at first glance to be a controversial one’. Indeed, of its two chapters and three parts (on
neighbourhood planning,
pre-commencement and other conditions, permitted development rights (PDRs) and the
planning register, and
compulsory purchase), the most controversial is surely
Clause 7 requiring applicant agreement on pre-commencement conditions. Among the main criticisms of the Bill raised during the debate, it was pointed out in no uncertain terms that there is a need to rely on ‘real statistical evidence’ of the extent to which pre-commencement conditions slow down developments, not just on ‘anecdotal evidence’.
On the other hand, there seems to be general agreement between the parties on the Bill’s
neighbourhood planning clauses,
PDR applications having to be included in planning registers and the
compulsory purchase changes being proposed. There is a recognised need to strengthen and streamline planning procedures, in order to build the homes the country needs. MPs have pointed out how greater clarity should be provided on ‘the level and weight attributed to neighbourhood plans at every stage of their preparation’, how there should be ‘appeal routes when agreement cannot be reached [on pre-commencement conditions]’, as well as repeating several times during the debate the ‘huge concern surrounding resources’ available for local planning authorities.
What is very noticeable from the debate is how on its side, the Government appears willing and open to discussing everything that is in the Bill, and has already anticipated that ‘at some point there will very likely be some amendments’. The new DCLG Secretary of State Sajid Javid also took the chance during the debate to talk more widely, and confirm some of the pledges he made at the Conservative Party conference last week and on previous occasions. In particular, he commented on ‘land banking’ (‘we will be taking further action’), and on Green Belt development only being looked at ‘in the most exceptional circumstances’ (‘the Bill will not change that’).
As expected, what the Bill does not include has been given much Opposition attention. The dropping of the Land Registry privatisation proposal was welcomed; the SoS did state that the decision on privatisation ‘will be for the Government to make in future’ and that it would not ‘be introduced in the Bill […] at a later date’. On the other hand, not including any clauses to put the National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory footing seemed a missed opportunity to many MPs, particularly given the strength of the link that the Government clearly recognises between infrastructure and housing development.
Finally, Housing Minister Gavin Barwell has confirmed some of the detail that we expect to be included in the Housing White Paper due in the autumn (most likely on 23 November, the day of the Autumn Statement). He says that ‘the interaction between neighbourhood plans and local plans, and particularly the issue of the five-year land supply’ is something the Government is willing to return to ‘as the Bill goes through Parliament’. He also stated in summing up the debate that planning departments’ resourcing ‘is something the Government
have consulted on’ and that a response to that
consultation will be made ‘as part of the White Paper’. The Housing Minister also confirmed at the end of the debate his department’s determination to take forward interventions on councils that do not have local plans in place, ‘early in 2017, potentially, […]’.
The Bill’s passage through Parliament
has just begun but it is moving very quickly – it is likely to reach the House of Lords as early as next month. It may seem odd that it is moving so fast, when it is ‘the sixth piece of legislation in the past six years to make provisions for planning’ and its measures are anything but all-encompassing. The fundamental reason for its swift progress is simply put: the Government has to use every possible angle to increase housing supply.
