Planning matters blog

Future Wales: A lever for change?

Stephanie Irvine 25 Feb 2021

Future Wales: The National Plan 2040, described by the First Minister as a “major milestone in the ongoing development of a distinctively Welsh planning system,” was formally launched by the Welsh Government on 24 February 2021. Future Wales represents the top tier in the development plan framework for Wales, to be built on and taken forward by Strategic Development Plans (SDPs) and Local Development Plans (LDPs). It is established in legislation and is informed by, and will inform, a variety of Government strategies and plans, as illustrated in Figure one.

Figure one: Model of Future Wales influence

Source: Welsh Government, Future Wales - The National Plan 2040 / Lichfields

The timing of the publication of Future Wales, together with an updated version of Planning Policy Wales (edition 11), towards what we hope is beginning of the end of the Covid-19 pandemic, has had a key influence on elements of its content. Importantly, the final document includes a greater acknowledgement of the need to support economic growth, and this is to be welcomed.

Economic growth

Although Future Wales misses the opportunity to set out an overarching strategic economic policy for Wales, it provides support for the aims set out in the Welsh Government’s Prosperity for All: Economic Action Plan (December 2017), including:

The development of key sectors such as advanced engineering, renewable technologies and transport;
Growth of innovation, research and development; and,
Support for the foundational economy, which includes care and health services, food and drink, housing, energy, construction, tourism and high street retailers.

The need to “re-energise” the Welsh economy following the Covid-19 pandemic is heightened by the nation’s pre-existing economic vulnerability, especially when compared to other parts of the UK. To illustrate this point, on average GVA per worker in Wales in 2018 was £20,700 compared to the UK average of £28,700 (72% of the UK average).

Figure two: Average GVA per head of population

Source: ONS Regional Gross Value Added (2018) (provisional) / Lichfields

Future Wales supports a regional approach to economic development and provides an important link between economic strategy and planning. It notes that there are current and emerging City Deals and Growth Deals in each of the four regions across Wales and that Regional Economic Frameworks are being developed under the leadership of the Welsh Government’s Chief Regional Officers.

Critically, Future Wales sets out that these Growth Deals and Regional Economic Frameworks should assume a “reciprocal and iterative” relationship with SDPs. This connection will be important in order to ensure that sufficient land is brought forward for (the right type of) development in the right places to support and not constrain sustainable economic growth. Hence, the importance of understanding the economic context of each region, with its own particular strengths and weaknesses, when planning for development – an area of work we specialise in at Lichfields.

Placemaking and planning for a post-Covid world

There are many unresolved questions about what life will look like after Covid and to what extent previous patterns of living, working and travel will go back to the way they were. Future Wales highlights that, during lockdowns, well-designed communities played an important role in supporting health and wellbeing. It advocates that key placemaking principles, including access to parks and green space, cycle routes and local shops, will continue to be important during the post-Covid recovery.

PPW provides further policy to support this recovery, supported by the Welsh Government’s “Building Better Places” document (July 2020), which we reviewed in our July 2020 Insight Focus.

Housing

The final version of Future Wales retains its focus on affordable housing as a clear national priority but still does not acknowledge the need to increase the supply of market homes. There are significant concerns with this approach, as discussed in our November 2020 Insight Focus. It is important to recognise the value of private housing, not just in terms of providing somewhere to live but also in the economic and social benefits of good quality homes in well-designed communities (reflecting Future Wales’ focus on placemaking). It should also go without saying that the delivery of private housing is a major driver for the provision of affordable homes.

The final version of Future Wales does, however, recognise that there is a need to “think about how we will retain and attract young people to all parts of Wales” in the context of the ageing population. This is absolutely vital in order to sustain services as well as providing the needed labour force to support economic growth. Furthermore, the increased focus on universities in this final version of Future Wales should also be reflected in the aim to retain graduates and skilled workers more generally.

Providing a sufficient number of homes in the right locations will be key to achieving this aim, and housing requirements in SDPs and LDPs must not be constrained by the past demographic trends that are embedded within the Welsh Government’s national and regional estimates of housing need. Indeed, Future Wales clearly states that these estimates do not take any account of future policies and states that “it is expected the housing requirements will differ from the estimates of housing need.”

Urban growth and regeneration led by the public sector

Future Wales sets out that the public sector will need to play a greater role in assembling land and enabling development in order to achieve the Plan’s growth and regeneration aspirations. Intervention by the public sector is certainly needed in order to unlock many brownfield sites for development, some of which have lingered in the planning system for years. However, there are widely held concerns that public funding is vastly inadequate to enable delivery where it is most sorely needed.

Furthermore, the role of the private sector should be recognised, including developers of all sizes, bringing a wealth of skills, experience and investment potential and offering opportunities for partnership working to bring forward regeneration schemes that are currently unable to progress.

The future starts now – or does it?

While it is positive to see the top tier of the new planning system now in place, there are noticeable gaps at the lower levels – meaning that in many areas development is currently unable to come forward.

The SDPs for each region will be led by Corporate Joint Committees (CJCs), as set out in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act (2021). The CJCs will be comprised of the leaders of each local authority together with any additional invited representatives from councils or other organisations. It is not anticipated that the CJCs, once convened, will reach Delivery Agreement stage until 2022. Hence, it will be several years before the first SDP is adopted.

It is therefore vital that new and revised LDPs come forward to enable needed development in the medium term, guided by Future Wales and bringing forward deliverable allocations to meet the needs of the nation. Short term solutions are also needed, recognising that plan making is an inherently slow process. Critically, eight of the 25 local planning authorities in Wales have LDPs that are due to expire this year and a further two do not have an adopted LDP at all. Sustainable development that is in accordance with Future Wales and PPW should therefore be supported in advance of the adoption of the next round of LDPs.

Future Wales is presented as a “lever” to deliver real change – responding to the climate emergency, re-energising the economy and supporting opportunities for a better Wales “with every mechanism at our disposal”. With the national plan now in place and the hope of a post-Covid recovery, it is high time to activate the mechanisms available within the planning system to deliver this needed change.

Revolution or evolution? A new future for Scotland's town centres

Robert Dibden 12 Feb 2021

It has been another tumultuous few weeks for our town and city centres. As the pandemic and UK-wide lockdowns continue, a raft of the nation’s most famous retailers are soon to disappear from high streets across the country. Neither Debenhams nor Arcadia’s high profile Topshop or Burton brands have been able to secure buyers for their existing retail units, and those stores will now add to the ever-increasing level of vacancy on the high street. These stores alone span 562 retail units totalling 1,389,137 m² of floor space, or the equivalent of almost 200 football pitches[1]. Symbolically for Scotland, the iconic Jenners department store in Edinburgh is to close after 183 years.

Amid all of this bad news comes the publication of ‘A New Future for Scotland’s Town Centres’ by the Town Centre Action Plan Review Group, Chaired by Professor Leigh Sparks. The report is a follow-up to the Scottish Government’s 2013 Town Centre Action Plan, which itself emphasised the role of town centres and the need to prioritise and support them. It promoted the Town Centre First principle, and explored themes including town centre living, accessible public services, proactive planning, digital towns, enterprising communities and vibrant local economies.

For a period during the years that followed, there were encouraging signs. Lichfields undertook our own research (Supporting Scotland’s Growth: What Next for Town Centre and Retail Development?) in 2016 which suggested that, whilst the sector had been subject to considerable change, it continued to offer significant growth potential. Indeed, at that time, our research suggested that cities such as Stirling were expected to generate growth of over 20% in terms of retail and leisure GVA. We also found that retail and leisure jobs accounted for over 25% of total jobs across Scotland and contributed to around £88 billion of consumer spending.

The sector therefore continues to be pivotal to the future social and economic wellbeing of both Scotland and the wider UK. However, as in the rest of the developed world, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a ‘game changer’ for our town centres. With the growth in online shopping over the last decade or so, most centres had already devised strategies based on re-focusing their offer away from retailing and toward a leisure and food and beverage-based offer. However, successive lockdowns have both acted as a catalyst in speeding up changes in shopping behaviour and impacted very directly on the leisure and hospitality sector, to the extent that it is now quite unclear how many centres will function when restrictions ease.

Against this background, ‘A New Future for Scotland’s Town Centres’ acknowledges some of the successes which followed the publication of their 2013 report, but does not shy away from several radical new recommendations which aim to counter the damage caused by COVID-19.

Firstly, the Group wants to further strengthen the position of town centres in national planning policy, including by prioritising centres within the next National Planning Framework 4, developing Town Centre Plans with local communities, and placing increased emphasis upon data and the monitoring of town centre health. Together, these initiatives seek to acknowledge that town centres are unique places and have specific characteristics and communities to consider.

Secondly, the Group asks the Scottish Government to review current tax, funding and development systems to better reflect different factors such as well-being, fairness and equality and climate change. This is possibly the most radical, and controversial, aspect of the report, and includes actions such as amendments to Non Domestic Rates, the introduction of a digital tax on online shopping, establishing out of town car parking charges and putting in place a total moratorium on out-of-centre retail development. It is difficult to imagine that the Scottish Government will adopt all of these suggestions, but it is interesting that several of the actions lie outside of the planning realm within taxation and broader economic policy. Such a holistic approach is currently being advocated by many parties across the UK.

Finally, the Group seeks funding for ‘demonstration projects’ in towns and town centres across the country. This could include housing sector incentivisation in town centres, digital skills development for businesses, strategic acquisitions, and action on climate change. Most of us with a vested interest in the success of our town centres would agree that any additional funding is to be welcomed at the present time, and the Scottish Government’s budget now includes over £80 million for projects to support community regeneration, town centres and ‘20 minute neighbourhoods’.

We await the Scottish Government’s response to the Group’s recommendations with interest, but regardless, the report has hopefully already succeeded in emboldening and energising debate on town centre issues across the UK.

[1] https://twitter.com/AltusGroupUK/status/1359157110370664451

Image credit: Daniel0685 via Flickr

Measuring the value of ‘social value’ in planning

Ciaran Gunne-Jones 03 Feb 2021

Social value is a term that has been gaining increasing prominence within the development sector over recent years. It has become very relevant to the way in which development projects are designed, procured and constructed in order to maximise the benefits to local communities, as well as broader questions about how the planning system can secure additional social value through plans and policies. So, what is meant by social value and what role does it have within planning?

In simple terms, social value refers to the benefits that an organisation can deliver to society through its activities and supply chain, and is defined within the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 which was introduced by the then Coalition Government. The Act requires public authorities to consider, “how what is proposed to be procured might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the relevant area” in connection with public services contracts.

It is worth highlighting that while the 2012 Act gave social value a legislative footing for the first time, it is not a particularly new concept. For example, “public value” has featured within UK government public policy appraisal guidance since the 1990s, such as the HM Treasury Green Book. There has been long-standing recognition that measures of social welfare need to be considered alongside market efficiency outcomes when appraising public spending decisions. But it was David Cameron’s “Big Society” concept that arguably paved the way for the 2012 Act, before Theresa May’s government went on to publish a 2019 consultation on social value in procurement.

This culminated in the publication of The Social Value Model in December 2020 which set out five social value ‘themes’, updated to reflect the ongoing impact of COVID-19:

COVID-19 Recovery;
Tackling economic inequality;
Fighting climate change;
Equal opportunity;
Wellbeing.

From 1 January 2021, it has been mandatory for social value to be “explicitly evaluated” in all government procurement processes in accordance with Procurement Policy Note 06/20 released by the Cabinet Office; this applies to all central government departments, their executive agencies and other non-departmental public bodies. A minimum weighting of 10% of the total score should be applied for social value in the procurement process, or higher if justified. Many local authorities are already emulating this approach.

But it is important to emphasise that the concept of social value is not simply about procurement. Government has previously signposted the potential to embed social value more widely into public policy, including planning. The 2018 Civil Society Strategy noted, ‘the government will explore the suggestion submitted to this Strategy that the Social Value Act should be applied to other areas of public decision making such as planning and community asset transfer’ (emphasis added). In this context, it is perhaps surprising that the 2020 Planning for the Future White Paper did not take the opportunity to expressly refer to social value.

However, it is not hard to see that the core ethos of creating social value already sits at the heart of the planning system. It is closely related, and complementary to, the principles of sustainable development already within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which include a “social objective” for the planning system alongside economic and environmental objectives. The single statutory “sustainable development” test proposed in the Planning White Paper, if adopted, could see social value feature even further in a new generation of local plans.

In the meantime, a number of local authorities are already incorporating social value policies within local plans requiring developers to make social value commitments, and for developments to deliver social value and maximise community benefits – for example, the emerging Islington Local Plan requires major developments within the borough to undertake social value self-assessments at planning application stage to evidence how social value benefits will be delivered and sustained by a development through its lifecycle.

Critics of social value sometimes claim it is a nebulous concept, but that perception is perhaps down to the inherently cross-cutting nature of what it represents. It is fair to say that it has taken time for it to gain traction and gradually permeate into different aspects of procurement and policy in the development sector. But nearly 10 years since the 2012 Act was passed, it is clear that social value is a powerful and enduring concept that is here to stay. As priorities are reassessed in the aftermath of COVID-19, and with a national policy agenda focused on “levelling up” and greater public spending to stimulate growth, social value may gain even greater prominence in the years ahead.

Here at Lichfields we have been using our social value framework and measurement tools to help our clients to demonstrate specific evidence and tangible examples of the social value outcomes attributable to their investments – be they for individual development projects or wider property portfolios – as part of a total impact approach to measuring added value and reporting on social responsibility.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch to discuss further.

Design-led - but a variety of NPPF changes are proposed

Tom Davies 02 Feb 2021

A year on from the publication of the ‘Building Better, Building Beautiful’ Commission’s report, ‘Living with Beauty’, the Government has issued its response, setting out where it will take forward the Commission’s recommendations. Accompanying the report is a consultation seeking views on the proposed amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the content of the newly published (draft) National Model Design Code and accompanying guidance note.

Launching the changes, the Secretary of State Robert Jenrick commented:

“We should aspire to pass on our heritage to our successors, not depleted but enhanced. In order to do that, we need to bring about a profound and lasting change in the buildings that we build, which is one of the reasons we are placing a greater emphasis on locally popular design, quality and access to nature, through our national planning policies and introducing the National Model Design Codes.”

While the press release and headlines focus on design quality and ‘Beauty’, the revisions to the NPPF cover a broader range of issues, with the Government also consulting on amendments to policies on sustainability, flood risk, and biodiversity; Article 4 Directions; protection of the historic environment; and minor changes which remove now out-of-date references within the Framework.

As the introductory summary states “This is not a wholesale revision of the National Planning Policy Framework, nor does it reflect proposals for wider planning reform set out in the Planning for the Future consultation document”. Taken together, however, the changes are not insignificant; in some areas these point towards possible changes to procedure for plan-making and the determination of applications, alongside a more general tightening of standards.

To get you up to speed with the proposals, we’ve covered the key changes below.

Improving design quality and placemaking

The Government has given centre stage to its proposals to raise the standards of design and quality of new development.

The plan-making section will explicitly promote the “use of masterplans and design codes to secure a variety of well-designed and beautiful homes”. Chapter 12 is to state that all local authorities should implement design codes, the detail of these should be tailored to the circumstances and scale of change in each place. While the current iteration of this policy suggested plans make use visual tools such as design guides and codes, the Government expects these to be more widespread going forward – and integral to improving the quality of new development.

To support this, a (draft) National Model Design Code (NMDC) with an accompanying guidance note has been published. This provides a framework for local authorities to develop their own localised codes; the Department is currently seeking 20 local authorities to run pilots. The NMDC provides a comprehensive list of principles that councils should consider when formulating their own codes, with more detailed definitions and proposed parameters included within the accompanying guidance note.

The state that design codes can be prepared for entire areas, or individual sites, while applicants may also prepare codes for sites which they propose to develop. To carry weight in decision making design codes must be developed in conversation with local communities, in order to reflect local aspirations. Where local codes are absent, the NMDC can be a material consideration.

While the word Beauty is used frequently throughout the revised Framework and accompanying guidance, what this means locally will be informed by baseline studies and based on the ‘ten characteristics of a well design place’ as set out in the National Design Guide and expanded upon within the draft NMDC. These bring together a range of established urban design principles such as built form (density, height and layout), movement, identity and public space which are to guide the development of local design criteria. As to the degree of detail that codes should include, the NPPF is to state that codes should “allow a suitable degree of variety where this would be justified”.

The Framework’s policy for encouraging good design is also to be strengthened, with significant weight to be given to development that reflects guidance and policies and outstanding or innovative designs that “fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings”. While this is not quite the “fast-track for beauty” put forward in the recent White Paper, the Government has stated in its response to the BBBBC report, that it wishes to explore widening the nature of permitted development, “so that it enables popular and replicable forms of development to be approved easily and quickly”.

The amendments also call for development proposals that are not well-designed to be refused. This is slightly stronger wording than at present, with the Framework currently stating that permission should be refused for development of “poor design” that does not reflect local design standards or codes.

Further to this, the Government proposes to take forward the Building Better Commission’s proposals for streets to be lined with trees; “unless, in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate”. Furthermore, opportunities should be taken to retain trees and/or incorporate trees elsewhere in developments. There should also be measures to ensure that trees are maintained post completion; it seems that this would likely be through conditions.

Achieving sustainable development: Global Goals, biodiversity, flood risk and protected landscapes

Amendments have been proposed to paragraph 11 (a), regarding the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’; plan-makers will be required to “align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects”. It would appear that the proposed changes seek to adapt this objective so that it would respond to areas of concern raised by Tory backbenchers in recent months, particularly regarding the delivery of infrastructure provision for new housing and focusing development on brownfield sites.

The Framework now also makes reference to the United Nation’s 17 Global Goals for Sustainable Development under paragraph 7, part of the Government’s strategy to ensure that the objectives (which the Government signed up to in 2015) are embedded in the planned activities of each Government department.

There have been some changes to the policies on biodiversity, with paragraph 178 having been amended so that development primarily aimed at conserving or enhancing biodiversity should be supported. Further to this, improvements to biodiversity in and around other types development should recognise opportunities to “enhance public access to nature”.

On flood risk, draft paragraph 160 (currently paragraph 156) has been amended to clarify the sequential test should take into account all potential sources of flood risk. Further to this, the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification is now included within the NPPF under Annex 3, moving from guidance to .

Changes are also proposed in light of the recent Glover Review of protected landscapes. The proposed changes would seek to ensure that the scale and extent of development within the ‘settings’ of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (not only within, as at present) should be sensitively located and designed so as to avoid adverse impacts on the designated landscapes.

Decision making: Article 4 directions and permitted development for residential use

Interestingly, the Government has sought to tighten the considerations to be applied when deciding if it is expedient to introduce for Article 4 Directions (i.e. areas where certain permitted development rights do not apply)[1].

It is proposed that all Article 4 Directions are limited to “the smallest geographical area possible”, but the amendments also seek to distinguish between the considerations for when it might be appropriate to remove permitted development rights for changes of use to residential and instances to remove other permitted development rights.

The Government has proposed policy that would apply only to change of use to residential, with two possible wordings - either that these rights will only be acceptable in “situations where this is essential to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts”. or “where this is necessary in order to protect an interest of national significance”.

This pre-empts proposals for authority-wide removal of the new Permitted Development right for converting the new Use Class E (commercial, business and services) to C3 residential, which was proposed in December.

As noted above, the Government says it wishes to explore widening the nature of permitted development further, and the proposed amendments regarding Article 4 Direction are a nod to this future intention too.

With the changes to Use Classes Order having cast doubt over the potential effectiveness of some existing Article 4 Directions (by virtue of former use Class B1 now being subsumed into the new use class E), it is not yet clear what the status of existing Article 4 directions will be, or whether any future changes to the GPDO will include transitional arrangements.

Heritage and protections for statues

Chapter 16 of the Framework, Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, is to have a new paragraph 197 relating to the preservation of historic statues and related, following concerns from the Government that these were being removed “without proper debate, consultation with the public and due process”.

The new paragraph states:

In considering any applications to remove or alter a historic statue, plaque or memorial (whether listed or not), local planning authorities should have regard to the importance of retaining these heritage assets and, where appropriate, of explaining their historic and social context rather than removal.

This policy seems intended to accompany changes to the law which were announced by the SoS in a press release on 17 January 2021. These proposed that where a council intended to grant planning permission for works involving the removal of any statues or statutory listed objects, the Communities Secretary would be notified and would take the final decision.

More broadly, the preservation and enhancement of the historic built environment underpins much of the Government’s ‘building beautiful’ agenda; with the National Model Design Code supporting the use of character appraisals and heritage assessments to form the baseline for the development of design codes.

Concluding thoughts

It is encouraging to see the Government placing greater importance on delivering well designed, sustainable development; most in the sector will agree with the sentiment of the proposals at least. While the immediate draft changes may be limited in effect, the proposals do amount to a notable shift in how the Government require the design of new developments to be assessed, particularly if design codes are to be used more widely, and the importance of design quality.

Such a change will no doubt cause some practical transitional difficulties, as councils, developers and local communities grapple with the creation of new codes and procedures , how these are interpreted and applied and whether flexibility should be applied for proposals that fail to accord with certain aspects of a local design code.

Next steps

To support the Government in its aims, a Written Statement made by the SoS on 1 February 2021, advised;

“We will be establishing an interim Office for Place within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with a transition board chaired by Nicholas Boys Smith tasked with considering what form the organisation should take, informed by responses to the “Planning for the Future” consultation.”

With the Building Better Commission having identified a skills gap in many authorities, ensuring authorities are equipped to deal with the changes will be key to ensuring design codes are successfully adopted and achieve their stated aims.

The consultation will run until 27 March 2021. These changes are intended to be short term amendments, with the Government also indicating that a comprehensive review of the Framework is likely, ‘depending on the implementation of the government’s proposals for wider reform of the planning system’.

MHCLG, All new developments must meet local standards of beauty, quality and design under new rules

MHCLG, National Planning Policy Framework and National Model Design Code: consultation proposals

[1] Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 says:

“If the Secretary of State or the local planning authority is satisfied that it is expedient that development described in any Part, Class or paragraph in Schedule 2, other than Class DA of Part 4 or Class K, KA or M of Part 17, should not be carried out unless permission is granted for it on an application, the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the local planning authority, may make a direction under this paragraph that the permission granted by article 3 does not apply to -

(a) all or any development of the Part, Class or paragraph in question in an area specified in the direction; or

(b) any particular development, falling within that Part, Class or paragraph, which is specified in the direction,

and the direction must specify that it is made under this paragraph”

Planning matters