Planning matters blog | Lichfields

Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

The Government’s long-term plan for housing – what’s new?
In advance of the Royal Assent of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) and publication of responses to several consultations, notably on amendments to the NPPF, the Levelling Up Secretary, Rt Hon Michael Gove MP has made a speech setting out the direction of travel for planning for housing.  The announcements have been made amongst a plethora of concurrent planning reform and tweaking of the existing system. This gives the impression of a Government still testing the water on various policy issues, in various ways, prior to preparing for an election and responding to the scrutiny of recent policy approaches. The delays to the LURB also provide opportunities to slot in potentially popular and/or pragmatic legislation. The headlines are dominated by the “Heseltinian approach” to urban regeneration, and the promotion of a significant Cambridge expansion. But planners in all sectors will be interested in development management proposals, including: new permitted development rights, funding for ‘upskilling and clearing the backlog’ and a ‘more permissive approach’ to small pockets of brownfield land.   Ten new planning proposals in the long-term housing plan There are ten news items that stand out in a plan mostly comprised of re-commitments. The amendments to the NPPF consulted on in December will be published “a little later this year” and the LURB is expected to gain Royal Assent subsequently this year. A regeneration focus is “guiding its [The Government’s] consideration of responses to the consultation”, indicating that decisions have not yet been made and will be refined in response to speeches and press releases such as those made on 24th July. Plans for Cambridge, inner-city London and central Leeds were announced “following the commitment in the Levelling Up White Paper to regenerate 20 places”. The Government plans for Cambridge to be Europe’s science capital within a new quarter, 65,000 homes at Docklands 2.0 in east London and Leeds regeneration and potential mass transit system.  Investing in "quality planning": over £24 million of additional investment (although the BBC suggests only half of this is new money not to be taken from current DLUHC budgets). A “planning super squad” will be created using £13.5 million of funding and first deployed to Cambridge. The investment will also support the eight investment zones in England. See below for more on this elements of the proposals.  A pragmatic approach to amending planning permissions is needed. Mr Gove said the Government “is clear that […] Local councils should be open and pragmatic in agreeing changes to developments where conditions mean that the original plan may no longer be viable, rather than losing the development wholesale or seeing development mothballed”. This is a very positive acknowledgement of larger schemes in particular. In the context of the LURB, this statement is possibly a nod to the proposed new amendment procedure, section 73B, and potentially Lord Lansley’s proposed clause that would provide for regulations that would set out a procedure for “drop-in applications”.  A new permitted development rights (PDRs) consultation, proposes new and amended PDRs relating to rural diversification and for the reuse and extension of urban and rural properties for housing and other uses. The consultation also covers the application of design codes and “providing more certainty over some types of development”.  A future PDRs consultation for householders to come in the Autumn.  A more permissive approach to small pockets of brownfield land is proposed. How this is to be achieved has not yet been set out, but it is intended to benefit SME builders.  Second stair cores for tall buildings. The Government has confirmed its intention to mandate second staircases in new residential buildings above 18 metres, following support for this threshold from the relevant experts. This clarity was widely expected. It is encouraging that DLUHC is to work with industry and regulators over the summer to ensure transitional arrangements to secure “the viability of projects which are already underway, avoiding delays where there are other more appropriate mitigations”.  Intervention in London – Mr Gove is critical of the Mayor of London’s record on housing, but said that he would work with the Mayor (whoever that might be?). However, his final tone indicated what would happen if collaboration broke down: “We are planning to intervene [in London], using all the arms of government, to assemble land, provide infrastructure, set design principles, masterplan over many square miles and bring in the most ambitious players in the private sector, to transform landscapes which are ripe for renewal. Our ambition in London is a Docklands 2.0 – an eastward extension along the Thames of the original Heseltine vision. […] Making sure we unlock all the potential of London’s urban centre – while also preserving the precious low-rise and richly green character of its suburbs. […] Which is why I reserve the right to step in to reshape the London Plan if necessary and consider every tool in our armoury – including development corporations”. Cambridge as a land value capture pilot? The Government notes the significant infrastructure requirements of the proposed new quarter in Cambridge - an initiative which some politicians in Greater Cambridge are resisting - and also the increase in land values that will arise from permissions for the new quarter being granted. The Government also notes the existing viability guidance on existing use value plus a premium and says: “The government intends to explore recommendations about what a reasonable premium to agricultural landowners should be. Building on this approach, the government intends that a consultation will be undertaken to inform the policy on a reasonable premium for landowners above existing use value, to support the development of plans for the new quarter. To the extent that infrastructure and affordable housing need justifies this position, the government anticipates that policy will be set to capture land value uplift above the premium. This will enable landowners to receive fair compensation for their land while minimising the public sector investment required to bring the development forward”.    Capacity and capability improvements The “Long-term plan for housing” announcements also included the launch of the new Capacity and Capability Programme for planning, designed to train and upskill existing planners, as well as creating new pathways into the profession at a graduate level. The application process began on 24th July and the intention is to allocate funds during October 2023. A planning super-squad At the core of the announcement is a Capacity and Capability programme, supported by a pot of £24 million to “scale up local planning capacity” through the Planning Skills Delivery Fund, and an additional £13.5 million to stand up a new “super-squad” of experts to unblock major housing and infrastructure developments. This team, once assembled, will first be placed in Cambridge to deliver the government’s ambitious housing and industry plans here. After this, the “super squad” will move to England’s eight Investment Zones announced so far, with the aim of delivering on their core objectives. Clearing the application backlog with a £24m Planning Skills Delivery Fund The Planning Skills Delivery Fund (PSDF) will provide £24 million over two years to local authorities to help clear the backlog of planning applications and support them with the implementation of the proposed reforms in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. In short, local authorities can apply for funding of up to £100,000 per local authority, to support them in either clearing the backlog or filling skills gaps - with priority given to applications to clear the backlog. Local authorities seeking backlog funding must set out the causes, nature and scale of their backlog and identify ways in which it can be cleared, as well as demonstrating how receipt of the funding would reach the root cause of the problem. This acknowledgement that “money is not enough” follows from the fees consultation and further strengthens our understanding the government’s view on this matter. Local authorities that are applying for skills funding must demonstrate areas in which they are lacking resource and put forward a case for how the introduction of a specialist resource in their department would deliver on a set of identified objectives. Finally, the guidance states “the intention of the year one application process is to focus on projects and change that could be delivered within 6 months” and that that Secretary of State retains the right to withdraw the funding. The funding is not to be used to support a local authorities’ role in the determination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). Financial support with the determination of NSIPs will be provided through the second round of the Innovation and Capacity Fund [launched on the 25th July] to “support and enhance the ability of local authorities to engage in the Development Consent Order process for NSIPs”.  The envisaged timeline for round one of the funding is that the after applications close on 11 September they will be assessed during September and the successful authorities announced in October 2023. Upskilling Measures There is a recommitment to support for the RTPI’s planning bursary for 50 post-graduate students, the LGA’s Planning Graduate Programme, designed initially for 30 people and a two-year extension of funding to the Planning Advisory Service (PAS), to include a skills audit within local authorities to identify skills gaps and opportunities for future development. DLUHC says PAS needs to allow for the continuation up-skilling within Local Authorities, as well as providing “targeted technical training, to address both the current skills gaps and to build readiness for change that will be required to meet the needs of the future planning system”. Application fees These funding and upskilling programmes, along with the draft fees regulations having been laid in Parliament, are an indication that while we still await a formal response to the Government’s consultation on increasing application fees in the interest of better performance, the ‘increasing fees’ element of planning reform imminent. Indeed, the Government confirmed they will be “Increasing the amount developers pay in planning fees, following our recent consultation, to ensure all planning departments are better resourced.” Sean Farrissey’s blog provides useful insight into the implications of that consultation and the draft fee regulations, in particular exploring how a simple cash boost may not be enough to get to the root of many problems that are embedded in the system.     Concluding remarks - A long-term vision? The emphasis on long-term vision within the latest announcements relates to there being limited immediate change proposed. As always, it is tempting to judge policy announcements as much by what is absent than what is present: the focus is indeed on the medium to long-term, with an eye to to discrediting Labour’s approach to planning reform at the next local elections in May 2024 and general election due by January 2025. In simple terms, the Conservative government is reiterating its commitment to beauty, backed with infrastructure and delivering homes through density, presumably with the intention of positioning the opposition as opposed to these principles. We must wait a little longer to learn how the responses to the NPPF consultation and indeed the LURB itself progresses, to see how policy will match the vision. The more immediate improvements to planning skills and resourcing are good news. Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities, Long-term plan for housing  Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities, Long-term plan for housing: Secretary of State's speech

CONTINUE READING

Mo money no problems? Consultation published on increasing planning fees and improving performance
Update 20 July 2023: The draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 have been laid before Parliament. Update 25 July 2023: The Government has now published its response to the consultation described below. ___________________________________________________ As promised in documents associated with the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB), the Government has published a consultation focused on increasing fees for planning applications in England. Such is the urgent need to start building capacity in local planning authorities (LPAs) this is a cost increase that will be welcomed by many. The consultation covers three topics: Increasing planning fees Building capacity and capability in the planning system Introducing a more robust performance regime The standout headline from the consultation is the proposed 35% increase in planning application fees for major applications and 25% increase for all other applications which include prior approval applications, minor and householder applications. Also proposed is the introduction of indexation which would allow planning application fees to rise with inflation. The justification behind this is to provide local planning authorities (LPAs) with financial stability, which the current system of ad hoc increases does not provide. A table of proposed fees is provided in the consultation. Under the plans, fees for retrospective applications would double. It is proposed that householders would not have to pay double the fee for retrospective applications where the application relates to householder development, but would still be expected to pay the standard planning application fee. The consultation also considers a new fee structure for the variation of planning permissions, reflecting proposals in the LURB which offer a new route to vary an existing permission such as Section 73B, which is discussed in greater detail here. LPA’s will retain the flexibility to set their own fees for pre-application advice, planning performance agreements and other bespoke services. However, the consultation notes that LPAs should be more transparent in the discretionary fees that they charge and the service that applicants can expect in return and is seeking feedback from applicants on these services. Views are being sought on whether the additional income gained from the proposed fee increase should be ringfenced for use within the local authority planning department rather than being available to support other council services. The consultation observes that past fee increases have required a written commitment from all local planning authorities in advance of implementation to guarantee that funding will be used to improve planning services, inferring that a decision on this lies in the hands of every local planning authority. One of the proposals the development industry may find concerning is partial or full removal of the ‘free go’ for repeat applications. Currently, where applicants reapply within 12 months of submitting an application, subject to certain conditions, they can do so without paying a fee. The proposals are designed to ‘encourage applicants to engage in pre-application discussions and support the submission of high-quality applications first time round’. This fails to acknowledge the political nature of planning that can lead to officer recommendations being overturned and the desire of applicants to resubmit and re-engage locally rather than proceeding to appeal. The Planning Inspectorate recently encouraged such re-engagement, saying “We closed over 1800 appeal cases in November. Although this is higher than most months, we are still generally receiving more appeals than we can currently decide. So please focus on resolving issues locally to reduce the number of appeals being submitted and help us improve”. It is also proposed that where the statutory determination period is 8 weeks, the Planning Guarantee should shortened to 16 weeks, but where the statutory determination period is 13 weeks (or 16 weeks for Environmental Impact Assessment developments) the Planning Guarantee should be retained at 26 weeks. Subject to the outcome of the consultation and Parliamentary approval, the new fees will be introduced in summer 2023. Fee levels will be reviewed no later than three years following implementation. The consultation acknowledges that "Money is not enough" and reconfirms "The government is only prepared to introduce fee increases if planning performance also improves". Accordingly, the Government proposes to amend the existing metrics that measure performance of local planning authorities for speed of decision-making. The planning performance framework would be broadened to include a wider range of metrics. These include the average speed of decision making, quality of decision making, extension of time, size of backlog, average timescales associated with planning enforcement and percentage of decisions delegated to planning committee and number of committee decisions to refuse against officer recommendation that are subsequently allowed at appeal.  Furthermore, the consultation considers including a qualitative measure as part of a new planning performance framework in the form of a ‘customer experience’ metric. A ‘customer experience’ measure could be based on a standardised customer satisfaction survey which focuses on the overall quality and timeliness of pre-application services and the decision-making service. A concern here might be that as with all types of review, only the least satisfied complete the survey. One might argue that requiring regular two way feedback sessions between regular users of an LPA’s service, including architects, surveyors, developers and planning consultants, perhaps with a short survey at the end, would provide a more helpful analysis of performance. This could be the sole reflection of LPA performance or be used to moderate the accuracy (and therefore usefulness) of reviewers with a one off perspective of the system and decision that hasn’t gone their way. Two way feedback might also create a more collaborative approach to the decision making experience and improve LPA recruitment and retention. Concerns expressed, by the public sector in particular, regarding recruitment and retention are acknowledged and the consultation seeks views on how to build capacity. Related to this, the Government “[…] want the planning profession to become more representative of the communities it is seeking to enhance”, referring to an RTPI report which “estimated only 3-4% of planners were from ethnic minority backgrounds (compared to 12% in society)” and that 40 per cent of planners are female. The consultation seeks to emphasise the role of, and value added, by planners, in a continued move away from past Government rhetoric of criticism of the planning system. But there a huge challenges ahead in terms of training and retaining skilled professionals, notwithstanding the very welcome “money is not enough” approach. Perhaps more metrics should follow, rather than lead? This consultation runs for 8 weeks from 28 February 2023 to 25 April 2023. Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Technical consultation: Stronger performance of local planning authorities supported through an increase in planning fees UK Parliament - Written Statement - Michael Gove  

CONTINUE READING