The new Government has wasted no time in setting out their ‘
devolution revolution’ vision, in a bid to push powers down to the local level and boost economic growth. Within days of taking office, ministers met with all existing mayors to discuss
"a major programme of devolution[1]". After setting out this vision, there was the announcement of the devolution bill in the Kings Speech. In this, the Government set out its legislative programme to establish a new framework for English devolution, with the aim to ‘deepen’ and ‘widen’ the devolution process and change their governance structures.
What has been proposed?
Today’s announcements continued this theme.
Firstly, the Government confirmed its “…intention to introduce a universal system of strategic planning across England in this Parliament”. The consultation, open until 24th September, has the objective “to promote a more strategic approach to planning, by strengthening cross-boundary collaboration, ahead of legislation to introduce mandatory mechanisms for strategic planning”
There are also new strategic powers proposed in the consultation draft revised NPPF (Paras 24-27) which states that:
“Effective strategic planning across local planning authority boundaries will play a vital and increasing role in how sustainable growth is delivered and key spatial issues, including meeting housing needs, delivering strategic infrastructure, and building economic and climate resilience, are addressed.
Once the matters which require collaboration have been identified, strategic policy-making authorities should make sure that their plan policies are consistent with those of other bodies where a strategic relationship exists on these matters, and with the relevant investment plans of infrastructure providers, unless there is a clear justification to the contrary. In particular their plans should ensure that:
a) a consistent approach is taken to planning the delivery of major infrastructure, such as major transport services/projects, utilities, waste, minerals, environmental improvement and resilience, and strategic health, education and social infrastructure (such as hospitals, universities, major schools, major sports facilities and criminal justice accommodation);
b) unmet development needs from neighbouring areas are accommodated in accordance with paragraph 11b; and
c) any allocation or designation which cuts across the boundary of plan areas, or has significant implications for neighbouring areas, is appropriately managed by all relevant authorities.”
This suggests that the Government expects this new strategic approach to encourage cross boundary working and help to address the most difficult issues for strategic planning, most notably the distribution of housing in areas where planning policy and other factors including local politics have acted to constrain growth.
The consultation on strategic powers has the goal that “
whatever the circumstances m SDSs can be concluded and adopted[2]”. All Mayoral and combined authorities would be supported to make Spatial Development Strategies (SDS), similar to the style of the London Plan, under the proposed changes. For other areas outside of Combined Authorities, strategic planning powers would be structured by functional economic areas (FEAs), or a grouping of authorities that follow previous working arrangements (for example previous LEP geographies). This is likely to come through the devolution bill announced in the Kings Speech, however could come through alternative forms of legislation.
There is also an emerging plan of how cross boundary working will be encouraged. The NPPF consultation (Para 28) states: “We intend to identify priority groupings of other authorities where strategic planning – and in particular the sharing of housing need requirements – would provide particular benefits, setting a clear expectation of cooperation that we will help to structure and support this, and to use powers of intervention where necessary.”
What might this change?
Prior to these proposed changes, local authorities could already work together informally (such as in Leicestershire) or to deliver joint development plans (such as Greater Manchester’s Places for Everyone). Where these have been successful, local leaders have a common goal that is set out and use the development plan to set a framework for future plans. However these are not always ‘planning documents’ but rather more akin to a shared vision.
Groups of authorities could also work together more formally. Spatial Development Strategies were promoted in the LURA to enable groups of authorities to produce a set of strategic policies for their relevant area, including housing targets as well as other policies, on a voluntary basis.
However, the voluntary nature (up until now) of both these models and without mandatory housing targets, mandatory strategic planning bodies or a strong pressure for cross boundary working, means there has not been a rush of strategies coming forward. The London Plan (produced before the LURA) provides the most high profile SDS example, albeit London is unique in its established mayoral structure and backed with significant other powers, such as the ability to set housing targets for local boroughs and to set ‘non statutory frameworks or strategies’.
The proposed plans for SDSs and effective co-operation aim to address these issues, with the Government consulting on the details of how to make this happen. This would be most effective in delivering change in areas where there has been a lack of effective strategic planning and where issues of unmet need are unresolved.
Widening devolution
In their Manifesto, the (now) Government set out to devolve certain powers to any group of local authorities that want them – widening devolution into so-called ‘devolution deserts’ by asking local authorities outside of the existing structures, to join at “sensible economic geographies”
[3] . The Deputy Prime Minister has subsequently written to all local authorities that do not currently have a devolution deal inviting them to work with the Government on plans to give them more power in their local areas.
Today’s announcements go further in showing their plans, to draft new legislation to introduce mandatory mechanisms for strategic planning with universal coverage and consulting on the most effective arrangements for developing SDSs outside of mayoral areas.
Almost half (48%) of England’s population already lives in areas with devolution deals accounting for 54% of its economic output and 26% of land area
[4] . Whilst this is significant, it also shows the scale of the proposed ‘devolution revolution’ for the remaining areas. If all the new deals in the pipeline before the General Election are implemented as planned (which is not a given
[5]) in 2025 (see figure 1) this will increase to 64%, 67%, and 54% respectively (ibid), meaning the majority of England’s population will be covered by a devolution deal.
This devolution also translates to housing need, as measured by the new Standard Method, with 47% of the new target falling in existing combined authorities, rising to 57% if all the deals currently progressing come into place in 2025 (Lichfields analysis for this blog, see figure 2). The increase in the new mandatory housing targets is relatively low for the existing combined authorities (which all had local authorities subject to the ‘urban uplift’), a rise of just 2% compared with 22% nationally. However, this is not the case for the areas that expect to be entering new deals next year, in total they face an increase of 80% in their housing targets compared with previously, with Hull and East Yorkshire (Mayoral deal due in 2025) Lancashire (non-mayoral deal due in 2025).
The devolution deals and governance arrangements in these areas will matter for how they will be able to use strategic planning powers to plan for these housing numbers across their local authority boundaries. The Government has opened consultations on how to allow for a democratic mandate in areas without Mayoral deals.
Deepening Devolution
The Government also pledged to ‘deepen devolution’ in their pre-election ‘Powering Up’ document. The document sets out a vision to devolve powers to structures that match FEAs and do not currently have metro mayors, and ‘deepening’ devolution deals in places that already have metro mayors. Today more details emerged.
The consultation asks whether “the NPPF should be amended to further support effective co-operation on cross boundary and strategic planning matters?” (Question 12) ahead of legislation to introduce mandatory mechanisms for strategic planning. This suggests the Government might consider a different approach to the current ‘4 tier devolution framework’ basis for deal making introduced under the last government. This is also in keeping with the notes from the Kings Speech which set out plans to start “improving and unblocking local decision making through more effective governance arrangements”.
This is important because the powers that a Mayor holds varies in different models:
-
The Mayor of London and the GLA have joint responsibility for planning with the London boroughs. The GLA sets outs its policies in a SDS for London (the London Plan). It also sets London’s housing targets for the boroughs. Planning applications of ‘potential strategic importance’ are referred to the Mayor for comment and the Mayor also has the power to ‘call in’ such applications for his planning decision.
-
The Mayor of Greater Manchester Combined Authority has planning powers and is developing a statutory development plan (Places for Everyone). This plan includes allocations for employment and housing land and is agreed by all constituent authorities (which excludes Stockport Council). The Mayor of Manchester has no powers to ‘call in’ strategic applications.
-
The Mayor of West Midlands does not have planning powers, but does work with constituent and non-constituent members on spatial planning and redevelopment of brownfield land, including use of compulsory purchasing powers to acquire land.
Today’s announcement showed how the Government plans to ‘back those with skin in the game’ to make the important, albeit often politically challenging decisions on where housing will go (and as trailed on the campaign trail crucially not ‘if’). The next stage will be to consider how this will affect the different models of devolution. In Manchester, the constituent council leaders sign off on a development plan, whereas in London, the Mayor has control over the London Plan, but not site allocations for development. This means in Manchester each local authority could potentially pull out ‘scuppering the plan’, while in London the tough decisions on allocations remain local.
How deals are deepened with Combined authorities which – up until now – have resisted strategic planning powers will need to be addressed. For example, the West Midlands, where planning powers were offered through the previous Government’s trailblazer deals but bring with it the potentially challenging requirement to allocate land - although the new Mayor has campaigned for more strategic powers.
As Our 2022 report
Paper showed many of the challenges in the West Midlands are based on meeting the unmet need of Birmingham (of roughly 38,000 in 2020) and the Black Country (28,000 in 2022) which has been a long term challenge for the region. Although the new housing targets announced today are slightly lower than previous for the Combined authority, authorities will now accrue any backlog of under delivery, meaning that this will likely be a challenge for the Combined authority area. The combination of changes announced today are designed to address this type of blockage and encourage cross boundary planning through a strategic body.
Will strategic planning benefit growth?
Cross boundary planning is crucial for the many areas across the country that have struggled to meet their housing demands within their local planning authority. The duty to co-operate which aimed to facilitate cross boundary working was purportedly rescinded from law in October 2023
[6] by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (LURA) and replaced in policy by a ‘soundness test’. This weakened a system which already left significant wriggle room for areas that were not minded to work across boundaries. In essence, there was little incentive to working with neighbouring authorities especially in areas where an economically successful city might be tightly bounded and surrounded by local authorities which might be constrained.
These successful economies are often the same areas, identified in Bethan Haynes’
blog where local planning authorities are mostly urban and/or constrained by Green Belt. The relevance to strategic planning, comes when considering Bethan’s point: “
This is in the context that the NPPF proposes to make brownfield development within settlements acceptable in principle and – most significantly - to compel reviews of the Green Belt and for ‘Grey Belt’ to be capable of development in situations where there in no five year land supply or the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) result is below 75%”.Combined, these local authorities, that are predominantly urban and/or constrained by Green Belt have existing local plan targets and recent rates of housing delivery at around 70% of the current need (as shown in Bethan’s blog) but have too often struggled to find willing partners to take on some of the development needs for a FEA. This, as the new Chancellor reminded us, has been choking growth. Combined with the mandatory targets and an NPPF which tilts the balance back in favour of meeting the development needs of the country, this could be boosted significantly, but this will require cross boundary working, enabled by effective strategic planning.
The Government’s ‘devolution revolution’ proposes a significant change in the way local areas plan strategically. Introducing universal coverage, new deals and powers alongside a greater emphasis on cross boundary working and mandatory housing targets that accumulate – will give a significant suite of powers and incentives for local areas to plan strategically. If successful, this could result in significantly more homes being delivered, in areas which have until now struggled to meet their need.
[1] BBC 8th July 2024 Starmer promises regular mayoral meetings
[2] July 2024 Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system
[3] https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Power-and-partnership-Labours-Plan-to-Power-up-Britain.pdf
[4] https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/english-devolution
[5] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx02e8d8282o
[6] Schedule 7 of the LURA, which substitutes sections 15 to 37 of the PCPA 2004, removes the duty to cooperate that is currently in section 33A of the PCPA 2004. However, Schedule 7 has not yet been enacted and, as such, the DtC is still in force for the purposes of plan-making under the current system until a replacement has been brought into force.
