England planning news, June 2018
01 Jun 2018
Contents |
|||
|
|
Headline news |
|
||
|
|
01
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law |
|
||
|
|
02
|
|
|
|
|
|
03
|
|
|
|
|
04
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
Policy |
|
|
|
|
|
05
|
|
|
|
|
|
06
|
|
|
|
|
07
|
|
|||
|
08
|
|
|||
Print this planning news
Headline news |
||
Changes to statutory consultation on planning applications for ‘higher risk residential buildings’ recommended post-Grenfell
The Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, led by Dame Judith Hackitt, published its final report on 17 May.
According to the Government, the purpose of the review ‘was to make recommendations that will ensure:
-
a sufficiently robust regulatory system for the future; and
-
residents feel that the buildings they live in are safe and remain so’
The primary focus of the new regulatory framework set out in the Report is stated as being higher risk residential buildings (HRRB), defined as ‘multi-occupancy higher risk residential buildings that are 10 storeys or more in height’.
A role for planning (planning permission is considered one of three ‘Gateway Points’, or key stages in the life of the building) is amongst the numerous recommendations which include:
-
regulation at the design and occupation stages;
-
giving residents a voice;
-
a more effective testing regime with clearer labelling and product traceability; and
-
a digital record for new HRRBs from initial design intent through to construction - and including any changes that occur throughout occupation.
The creation of a Joint Competent Authority is recommended too; this would be a combined regulatory oversight body for HRRBs and would be comprised of the Health and Safety Executive, Local Authority Building Standards and fire and rescue authorities. Accordingly, the report states that the JCA, if created, should be a statutory consultee on planning applications that include an HRRB. It is recommended that the process should also apply where planning permission for another building in the near vicinity is sought (where such a building might impact on fire service access to an HRRB).
These recommendations respond to the Review’s observation that:
‘[…] where a planning application is made for a HRRB there is no statutory requirement for the local planning authority (LPA) to consult the fire and rescue authorities, before determining the application. This may increase the risk that planning permission will be given for new HRRBs where fire service access (in the event of a fire) has not been properly assessed.’
This is considered one of a number of structural and cultural weaknesses in the current system.
The report advises:
‘Whilst the recommendations in each chapter are crucial, in isolation they will fail to achieve the systemic change sought. The framework operates as a mutually reinforcing package and requires the implementation of its interdependent components in order for this to be achieved.’
While a ban on combustible material in cladding systems is not recommended, her final report has stopped short of calling for such a measure; Housing Secretary James Brokenshire did however announce in the House of Commons on the day of the report’s publication that the Government will consult on banning the use of combustible materials in cladding systems on high-rise residential buildings.
MHCLG, ‘Radical reform’ of building regulatory system needed, finds Dame Judith Hackitt MHCLG, Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Hackitt reviewHouse of Commons Hansard, Building Regulations and Fire Safety debate, 17 May 2018
|
|
Quote of the month |
|
|
‘[…] the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden gave us an iconoclastic blast at the prevailing consensus around green belt, which I will certainly reflect on.’
MP for Mitcham and Morden, Siobhain McDonagh, and Housing and Planning Minister, Dominic Raab, in reply during a ‘Housing and Homes’ debate in the House of Commons on 15 May 2018House of Commons Hansard, Housing and Homes debate, 15 May 2018 |
||
Law |
||
In the courts
Habitats’ ruling means disregarding mitigation measures at initial screening stage
A recent decision by the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) is likely to lead to changes in the way that the Habitats Directive is interpreted for plans and projects.
People over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta ruled that Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC ('the Habitats Directive') must be interpreted as meaning that mitigation measures (i.e. measures to reduce or avoid effects) cannot be taken into account at the initial screening stage and should only be assessed within the framework of an Appropriate Assessment (‘AA’). This is contrary to case law established in England and Wales (Hart DC V SSCLG, Luckmore Limited & Barratt Homes Ltd.) that had established that avoidance or reduction measures could be taken into account when considering whether a plan or project would be likely to have a significant effect on a European Site. If the risk of significant effect could be excluded on the basis of objective information at the screening stage, then a full AA (with associated time and consultation requirements) did not need to be undertaken.
The ECJ case relates to grid connection works associated with the Cullenagh wind farm in Co. Laois, Republic of Ireland. Planning permission for the wind farm itself was granted by An Bord Pleanala in June 2014 but did not include the laying of a cable connecting the facility to the electricity grid. Whilst the laying of such a cable would usually be considered ‘exempted development’ not requiring consent, in this case the route of the works had a relationship to two special areas of conservation (‘SAC’) designated under Natura 2000. If the works impacted on the designations, then an AA would be required and the scheme could not be considered exempted development. To determine whether AA was required, the applicant, Coillte, instructed the preparation of a screening pursuant to the requirements of the Habitats Directive. The screening document submitted took account of various ‘protective measures’ to avoid possible impacts in the form of the release of suspended solids into the water bodies that form part of the SACs and that could, if released, negatively impact on the Nore Pearl Mussel (margaritigera durrovensis), which is also protected under the Habitats Directive. Taking the protective measures into account, it was determined that AA was not required in this situation.
This decision was challenged by People over Wind and Peter Sweetman; the High Court determined in March 2017 that the matter should be referred for consideration by the ECJ, noting as it did so that whilst Coillte had suggested that Hart had been ‘incorporated “lock, stock and barrel” into the Irish legal system’, the Court did not see that there had been an ‘unqualified endorsement by the Irish High Court of the reasoning in Hart’.
The ECJ decision concludes that if measures are required to be taken into account at the screening stage to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of a plan or project on the site concerned then ‘it is likely that the site is affected significantly and that, consequently, such an assessment [i.e. an AA] should be carried out’. The decision goes onto state that:
‘Taking account of such measures at the screening stage would be liable to compromise the practical effect of the Habitats Directive in general, and the assessment stage in particular, as the latter stage would be deprived of its purpose and there could be a risk of circumvention of that stage, which constitutes, however, an essential safeguard provided for by the directive.’
Given the implications of the decision on the approach to be taken where a proposed plan or project is subject to Habitats Regulation Assessment, the Planning Inspectorate issued PINS Note 05/2018 on 9 May 2018; it recommends that for both plan making and in casework, screening decisions already made that have taken into account mitigation measures should be re-examined and AA conducted where necessary. The Government may also write to the ECJ to confirm the implications of its decision in the UK.
People over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte TeorantaCouncil Directive 92/43/EEC: 'on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora' (the Habitats Directive)
Judgment backs London Mayor’s ‘threshold’ approach to affordable housing
Despite McCarthy and Stone and Renaissance Retirement announcing on 23 May that the High Court had ruled in their favour on the first ground of their legal challenge of the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), the judgment otherwise held that the Mayor’s threshold approach, which allows developments to be fast-tracked through the application determination process where they provide at least 35 per cent affordable housing, is consistent with the adopted London Plan. A retirement home consortium had challenged the SPG that comprised McCarthy and Stone, Churchill Retirement Living Ltd., Pegasus Life Ltd. and Renaissance Retirement Ltd.
On that first ground, Ouseley J actually held that the SPG is inconsistent with the London Plan in only one respect - and is not lawful to that extent – that one respect being that the Plan does not permit the imposition of a requirement for all sites of 10 or more homes to produce at least three viability appraisals, and more ‘if the phases so turn out’. It permits such a requirement only where, ‘in general, the timescale or scale of development means that it is likely to take many years to complete a phase or the whole’.
Otherwise, the Judge did not accept that the SPG’s 35 percent threshold was unlawful; the claimant had sought to argue that there would be cases where that threshold did not capture the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, and was thus inconsistent with London Plan policy.
The Judge also said:
‘The status of SPG matters little now that the draft London Plan has been published and consulted upon […]’
It will now be for the Consortium to present evidence to the draft London Plan examination, in their efforts to convince the Mayor that late stage reviews are inappropriate for smaller, most often single phase schemes of the type they usually propose.
Otherwise in the judgment, Ouseley J rejected the Consortium’s claims that the SPG should have been the subject of Strategic Environmental Assessment. The Judge found too that the claims that the Mayor had failed to have due regard to his duties under the public sector equality duty of the Equality Act 2010 were unarguable.
McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyle Ltd. & Ors. R (on the application of) v Greater London Authority [2018]Mayor of London, Judge rules in favour of Mayor’s threshold approach to housing
Town and Country Planning Permission in Principle Order 2017
Applications for permission in principle (PiP) for minor residential developments (of between 2 and 9 homes) may be submitted to LPAs from today, 1 June 2018, when the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017 comes into force.
The amendment Order provides the necessary procedures for implementing the Housing and Planning Act 2016’s provision for making an application for PiP, for sites where between 2 and 9 new houses are proposed. The site does not need to comprise previously developed land, either in whole or in part.
Applications for PiP cannot be made for major, habitats regulations, householder, or Schedule 1 environmental impact assessment (EIA) developments. PiP can be granted for Schedule 2 EIA development, providing that a screening opinion that the proposal is not EIA development has been adopted or made.
Once a PiP has been granted on application, a technical details consent (TDC) relating to the proposed development has to be sought within three years, after which the PiP expires.
As yet, there is no PiP application form, nor a form for applying for a non-material amendment to a PIP (the link in the Order’s Explanatory Note is to a page that does not appear to be maintained). Perhaps more surprisingly, there is not yet an application form for a TDC, notwithstanding that one may already apply for TDC in respect of a site in Part 2 of a council’s brownfield land register.
Further details can be found in our blog discussing what is known so far about PiP on application, and in our Guide to PiP.
The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017Lichfields Planning Matters: Take a chance on me: what we know about permission in principle on applicationLichfields Planning Matters: Brownfield land registers and ‘permission in principle': Lichfields’ essential guide
Proposed legislation
Regulations made for pre-commencement conditions
On 3 May, two statutory instruments were made by the Government in relation to s14 (‘Restrictions on power to impose planning conditions’) of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017.
Commencement regulations provide that s14(1) and (3) will come into force on 1 October 2018, bringing into force parts of s100ZA of the Act, which specifies that planning permission for the development of land may not be granted subject to a pre-commencement condition without the written agreement of the applicant.
The related pre-commencement conditions’ Regulations, made in exercise of the powers conferred by s100ZA(6), provide that the requirement for a written response by the applicant does not apply where the local planning authority (or the Secretary of State) has given notice to the applicant of the intention to grant the permission subject to pre-commencement condition(s) and the applicant does not provide a ‘substantive response’ to the notice before the expiry of a 10 working days period from when the notice was served.
The Regulations do not go as far as expected; in the Government response to the consultation, a number of respondents requested that exceptions should be made to the requirement for applicants to agree certain pre-commencement conditions, notably for matters regarding heritage, nature conservation and environmental protection. Such exemptions were originally proposed when the Neighbourhood Planning Bill was published in 2016, but had disappeared by the time of the first ‘indicative draft’ regulations in December 2016. Accordingly, no such exceptions have been made, and where complications arise and an applicant does not agree to a condition relating to such matters, the authority will refuse permission.
For more details of the potential implications of the new secondary legislation when it comes into force, our blog looks at some procedural matters that may well need to be ironed out between applicants and planning authorities.
The Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 (Commencement No.5) Regulations 2018The Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018MHCLG, Government response to the consultation on pre-commencement conditions regulationsLichfields Planning Matters: New procedures for pre-commencement conditions come into effect from October 2018
Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill 2017-19
The Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill 2017-19 reached Report Stage on 15 May. No amendments were made to the Bill, which was passed on Third Reading, also on 15 May. The date that the Bill will proceed to the Lords has not yet been announced.
For our summary of the Bill and its relationship with the housing crisis, please see our May 2018 England Planning News story.
Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill 2017-19Lichfields England Planning News, May 2018: story regarding the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill 2017-19
New environment law to deliver a Green Brexit
A DEFRA consultation started on 10 May on the contents of the proposed Environmental Principles and Governance Bill, one aim of which will be to ‘establish a world-leading body to hold government to account for environmental outcomes’.
The new Bill - due to be published in draft in the autumn - will also require ministers to produce and then have regard to a statutory, comprehensive policy statement that would set out ‘how they will apply core environmental principles as they develop policy and discharge their responsibilities’. It will ‘ensure governments continue to have regard to important environmental principles through the policy statement, which would be scrutinised by Parliament’. The consultation seeks views on whether the principles to be contained in the policy statement should be listed in the primary legislation, or not.
Public consultation on the environmental principles policy statement will follow ‘in due course’. The Bill will be introduced early in the second session of this Parliament, with the aim of ensuring that the above measures are introduced before December 2020.
Environment Secretary Michael Gove said:
‘As the Prime Minister has made clear, we will not weaken environmental protections when we leave the EU. A new Environmental Principles and Governance Bill will ensure core environmental principles remain central to government policy and decision-making. This will help us to deliver a Green Brexit and the vision set out in our 25 Year Environment Plan.’
DEFRA, New environment law to deliver a Green Brexit
Policy |
||
Government policy
New Housing Secretary sticks to Party lines
On his first day in post, new Housing Secretary James Brokenshire had to answer parliamentary questions on his departmental responsibilities and on affordable homes; reference was made to the Green Belt, council homes, the Hackitt Review and local government finance. He maintained the Party line throughout.
Likewise Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Rishi Sunak in a 23 May debate on ‘Planning: Local Communities’ went over the same ground regarding ‘community participation’, setting out ‘the importance that the Government place on communities when it comes to plan making and planning decisions’. He stressed the value of neighbourhood planning, without going into the detail or reference to any research findings. Lichfields has however looked into the types of places that have progressed plans, how they relate to local plans’ slow progress in many areas, and the role they play in housing delivery.
House of Commons Hansard, MHCLG: Topical Questions, 30 April 2018House of Commons Hansard, Affordable Housing debate, 30 AprilHouse of Commons Hansard, Planning: Local Communities, 23 MayLichfields, Local Choices? Housing delivery through Neighbourhood Plans
Call for NPPF presumption in favour of homes on Green Belt sites near railway stations
A group submission to MHCLG, signed by parliamentarians, academics and others, was made by Labour MP Siobhain McDonaugh (working alongside think tank Centre for Cities) in response to the since-closed consultation on the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The submission calls for the revised NPPF to include a presumption in favour of residential-led development for sites - whether in the Green Belt or not (but with specified exemptions e.g. for protected areas) – that are within one kilometre of a Transport for London or national rail station that provides access to London’s Zone 1 in less than 45 minutes.
Siobhain McDonagh, MP for Mitcham and Morden, London's Non-Green Green Belt and signatories
Government still targets end of July for revised NPPF
It was reported from the National Planning Summit held in early May that the Government still expects to publish the revised NPPF by the end of July, despite an overwhelming volume of responses to the consultation that closed on 10 May.
Chief Planner Steve Quartermain was reported as saying there had been more than 27,000 responses, although this total includes multiple submissions from campaign groups (including 5,000 duplicate responses seeking better protection for veteran trees).
Gove’s draft Clean Air Strategy
On 22 May, Environment Secretary Michael Gove published for consultation a new, draft Clean Air Strategy that aims to ‘cut air pollution and save lives’; it refers to primary legislation that will be brought forward ‘at the earliest opportunity […] to secure a more coherent legislative framework for action to tackle air pollution’.
The draft Strategy is seen as a key part of the Government’s ‘A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment’; it aims to halve the number of people living in locations where concentrations of particulate matter are above World Health Organisation guidelines.
The document states that later this year, the Government will ‘provide guidance for local authorities explaining how cumulative impacts of nitrogen deposition on natural habitats should be mitigated and assessed through the planning system’.
DEFRA, New Clean Air Strategy has been launched by Environment Secretary Michael Gove
Government reports
Historic England reports on role of heritage in planning decisions
A research report was published on 8 May that has been prepared for Historic England, entitled, ‘Heritage in Planning Decisions: the NPPF and Designated Heritage Assets’.
The research was based on a review of a sample of more than 300 planning applications, mostly from 2016/17, ‘where heritage assets were likely to be worthy of examination’.
Key findings include:
-
The take-up of NPPF policies in heritage-related planning applications as a whole is seen as ‘patchy’, and ‘less than might reasonably have been expected’;
-
Applicants, local authority heritage advisers and planning case officers alike did not perform ‘obviously well’; and
-
The overall picture of the protection of designated heritage is ‘disappointing’.
It is recommended in the report that Historic England, supported by MHCLG and DCMS, ‘make an effort to raise standards’ by promoting a lengthy, Historic England-published checklist to all parties involved in planning applications.
Another recommendation is that an amendment is made to the NPPF, to the effect that the potential consequences for heritage should be fully examined in the process of allocating land for development in all development plans, ‘so that any necessary limitations on development can be established at this time’.
National Planning Practice Guidance should also be amended, according to the report’s recommendations, to make it clear that ‘real efforts should be made to find alternatives to submitted proposals in order to reduce heritage impacts’ – this should include design alternatives.
Local plans should allocate older people's housing sites, say MPs
On 3 May, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Housing and Care for Older People published its report, ‘Rural Housing for an Ageing Population: Preserving Independence’.
The report makes a series of recommendations to local authorities, government departments and Homes England on strategic and local planning, including MHCLG not removing the current ‘obligation’ on every local authority to prepare a local plan. The Housing Secretary should also issue guidance to local planning authorities on meeting the needs of older people in rural communities, e.g. by the allocation of sites in their local plans specifically for the housing of older people, ‘across all tenures’.
Review of ‘designated landscapes’ announced
The Government has announced a review of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which will be led by writer Julian Glover. The review is a commitment of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan, published in January 2018.
According to its terms of reference, matters the review will address and make recommendations on include:
- the existing statutory purposes for National Parks and AONBs and how effectively they are being met;
- the case for extension or creation of new designated areas;
- how to improve individual and collective governance of National Parks and AONBs, and how that governance interacts with other national assets;
- how to enhance the environment and biodiversity in existing designations;
- how to build on the existing eight-point plan for National Parks and to connect more people with the natural environment from all sections of society and improve health and wellbeing; and
- how well National Parks and AONBs support communities
According to DEFRA:
‘Weakening or undermining their existing protections or geographic scope will not be part of the review, which will instead focus on how designated areas can boost wildlife, support the recovery of natural habitats and connect more people with nature.’
The review will report in 2019, to coincide with the 70th anniversary of National Parks.
DEFRA, National Parks review launched
Newly formed Heritage Council intends to help ensure sector thrives
On 3 May, DCMS announced a newly formed ‘Heritage Council’ that ‘seeks to strengthen the link between the country’s heritage and the wider regeneration and placemaking agenda as well as helping government to best support the heritage sector’.
The Council is intended to create closer links between the Government and the heritage sector, to ‘enable dialogue to drive progress in key policy areas affecting heritage’. In addition, it is proposed that the Council and government will work together on issues such as planning, environmental protection, social and economic development, and education.
The core members of the Heritage Council are: DCMS; DEFRA; MHCLG; HMT; Historic England; The Heritage Lottery Fund; The Heritage Alliance; Natural England; The National Trust and Historic Houses.
DCMS, Newly formed Heritage Council will help ensure sector thrives
Po-Mo buildings from 1980s and post-war pubs given listed status
It was announced on 10 May that 17 post-modern buildings had been listed, following Historic England’s research into this architectural style and recommendations to DCMS that the Government should give these buildings heritage protection.
Hot on the heels of this announcement, 5 new listings were made of post-war pubs, particularly in recognition of the new and invaluable role that they played at the heart of communities at the time.
Historic England, 1980s Buildings Officially Become HeritageHistoric England, Five Quirky Post-War Pubs Listed
Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Raynsford Report present very different pictures of planning reform
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss spoke at the Spectator Housing Summit on 17 May in stark contrast - and taking the entirely opposite approach (by for example referring to ‘cutting through bureaucracy’) - to the newly published interim report of the Raynsford Review of planning in England and its 9 reform propositions offered (see below).
The Chief Secretary spoke of young people being ‘at the forefront of a huge shake up of the economy […] spending too much time as frustrated flat hunters’.
Comparing UK cities to the US, she turned to planning and stated:
‘[…] restrictions on building are holding cities up. Analysis shows that opening up planning is one of the fastest things we could do to boost our country’s productivity. This is why reform is so urgent. It’s restrictions that are causing problems, but there are some out there who say that the solution is more restrictions, more control, more state interference. This is the opposite of what we need.’
She went on to refer to housing supply as the underlying issue and continued:
‘We need to open up more land to build on. That means challenging the vested interests. We need to challenge the NIMBYs, comfortable in their big houses in suburbia. The fact is that flats and houses need to be built where they are needed […] We need to liberate business planning in high-growth, free enterprise areas. I would like to see more of the development model used to build Canary Wharf – A Canary North!’
Concluding her speech, she described the planning system as ‘Byzantine’ and it needing reform, ‘to make it easier for the small firms to compete, to disrupt the market and, through fierce competition, build the houses and offices and factories that will make Britain successful’. In doing so, she made mention of how ‘in the 1930s, before planning system was introduced, there were ~265k houses built by the private sector a year – which goes to show we can do this!’.
Comment: Unfortunately, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury seems to have overlooked how the scale of private sector housebuilding in the ‘30s was achieved in large part by ribbon development that was heavily opposed at the time; the subsequent creation of the Green Belt sought to prevent it. Furthermore, the 1930s housing developments she refers to came forward with, or as a result of the construction of major new roads and underground lines - entirely incomparable to the scale of investment in infrastructure built to support new housing since.
HM Treasury, Speech by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the Spectator Housing Summit
Raynsford review interim report says planning system at ‘historically low ebb’
The interim report of the Raynsford Review of planning in England was published on 15 May. Although not a Government report, the review is being led by Nick Raynsford MP, with Lord Kerslake also being a task force member.
As stated in the report’s executive summary, it aims to ‘promote debate about the future of the planning system in England by setting out how the system was founded, examining its current structure, and providing an initial analysis of the evidence presented to the Review about its current performance’.
Having concluded that the planning system is ‘at a historically low ebb’, nine ‘provisional propositions’ are offered for a new system – ‘the basis for a conversation’ - relating to:
- Planning being in the public interest;
- A statutory purpose for planning being defined;
- A ‘genuinely’ plan-led system, with development management powers restored over the conversion of buildings to homes using permitted development rights;
- Positive citizen participation in decisions;
- Minimum development standards, including design and resource use;
- New plan-making legislation for 4 spatial scales (neighbourhood, local, regional and national);
- The coordination of public institutions with a stake in the planning process;
- Sharing land values (exploring options using development corporations, reforming s106 and the community infrastructure levy, and with ‘an element of betterment taxation’); and
- Reform of the education, ethics and continuing professional development of planners.
The final report of the review is due to be published before the end of the year.
TCPA, ‘Planning 2020, Interim Report of the Raynsford Review of Planning in England’
Parliamentary inquiry: high streets and town centres in 2030
The House of Commons HCLG Committee launched a new inquiry on 10 May, looking into the future of high streets and town centres in England in 2030.
The inquiry will examine:
-
the future role of the high street in contributing to the local economy and the health, cohesion and cultural life of the local community; and
-
‘the challenges faced amid changing demographic, technological and other trends in recent decades’.
The Committee will also look at how the future of high streets and town centres are being planned for in local areas, and how stakeholders are ‘planning for and creating the conditions to sustain them in the years ahead’. In addition, the inquiry will examine whether councils have the planning, licensing, tax raising ‘and other tools needed to help local areas flourish’.
In considering what high streets and town centres will look like in 2030, submitters are given the following list of matters they may want to address:
-
The role of high streets and town centres in contributing to the local economy and the health, wellbeing, cohesion and cultural life of the local community
-
The economic, demographic, social and technological challenges facing high streets and town centres and how they are likely to develop over the next ten years
-
How high streets and town centres are adapting to meet these challenges, the conditions necessary for sustainability, for example, residential development and related infrastructure, and how local areas are planning for the future
-
The outlook for high streets and town centres that cannot rely on consumer spending and business growth and investment
-
Whether councils have the planning, licensing, tax raising and other tools needed to help local areas flourish and how they make use of these
-
The legacy of the Government’s previous work on the high street, including the Portas Pilots, the Future High Streets Forum and the Great British High Street
The closing date for written submissions is 22 June 2018.
House of Commons HCLG Committee, High streets and town centres in 2030 inquiry launched
Chief Planning Officer’s issues reminder re GPDR – but revised guidance is still pending
Chief Planner Steve Quartermain CBE has written to Chief Planning Officers in England, reminding them that the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) would have effect from 25 May 2018; there are implications for planning, given that in some cases, data received by local planning authorities will be personal and will contain one or more of the categories of sensitive information which are subject to additional safeguards.
His letter made reference to a ‘recent First Tier Tribunal decision’, understood to be Basildon Borough Council v Information Commissioner (2018). In that case, the Council had uploaded a planning statement containing sensitive information to its website, before realising its error and reporting it. The Council was fined for having insufficient, appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure that there would be no unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data.
The judgment also noted:
‘The PARSOL Planning and Building Control Information Online Guidance notes (which provides advice to, amongst others, planning authorities on the online publication of planning applications and which was developed in collaboration with the Commissioner and published in August 2006) is poorly drafted and clearly needs urgent revision.’
Consequently, the Chief Planning Officer’s letter also notes:
‘The PARSOL guidance which was prepared in 2006 and refers to the Data Protection Act 1998 is now out of date, and has been removed from the GOV.UK website. To further assist local planning authorities ensure their processes are robust, the Planning Advisory Service, in consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office, are leading a cross sector group preparing guidance on the processing of personal data in relation to planning applications.’
Chief Planning Officer letter from the Chief Planner, 10 May 2018Basildon Borough Council v Information Commissioner (2018)
First Northern Powerhouse Business Summit this summer
It was announced jointly by MHCLG and DCMS on 16 May that a 3-day summit to discuss the future direction of the Northern Powerhouse will take place this summer, from 4 to 6 July 2018 in Newcastle Gateshead. There will also be discussion on:
‘[…] how to tackle the North-South divide in educational attainment and outline the measures government is undertaking to reverse historic under-investment in northern transport and super-connect the great cities and towns of the North.’
MHCLG, First Northern Powerhouse Business Summit set to be held this summer
|
|
The Lichfields perspective |
|
| Jennie Baker, Associate Director | ||
Disclaimer: This publication has been written in general terms and cannot be relied on to cover specific situations. We recommend that you obtain professional advice before acting or refraining from acting on any of the contents of this publication. Lichfields accepts no duty of care or liability for any loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material in this publication. Lichfields is the trading name of Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Limited. Registered in England, no.2778116