Well, no one can accuse the Conservatives of not drawing out a process to increase anticipation; after much speculation, rumour and delay, the Conservative have today published their Planning Policy Paper. Although much of this had previously been trailed the weekend before the expenses scandal arrests were announced (which knocked the original timescales for publication off course), the paper itself when it has come to light is best summed up in one word, ‘radical’.
The tone for the paper is set in the first heading of the first paragraph which is entitled ‘A Broken System’, if anyone was left in any doubt over the views of the Conservative Party over Labour planning policy, this should clear it up… The Conservatives see the current, centralised system, as being responsible for alienating communities, creating an adversarial system and leaving a democratic deficit - they may well have a good point here. The paper retains the premise of being pro-development and using policy to enable communities to become supportive of development rather than opposed with a core focus on community participation and social engagement. However, there remain question marks over some of the application of this and the extent to which engagement can bring ‘antis’ on board.
The proposals being put forward suggest an almost complete overhaul of the planning system as we know it within a short space of time with transitional measures to be put in place in the interim. The Conservatives have taken a clear view that incremental change will not achieve anything – certainly not within the lifetime of a Parliament anyway – therefore a wholesale revolution is the only option. In terms of the industry, this is likely to be favoured above piecemeal change – not only does it provide a clear understanding of what is happening when, how and within what timescales but it also gives certainty over the future of the policy framework.
The theme throughout the paper is ‘Open Source Planning’, effectively creating a flexible and adaptable framework which can be easily accessed and used by all. Continuing the computer geek theme it states that a ‘radical reboot’ is needed – presumably switching the whole thing off and switching it back on again isn’t seen as sufficient in this case. Although there is a need to ensure that, when rebooting, you don’t lose all the good bits of the process in the changeover.
Key Issues
Abolition of regional planning bodies, RSSs and national and regional building targets
The Conservatives, quite rightly, point out that many decisions are actually made by unelected officials as opposed to elected members due to the time pressures on LPAs to determine applications in order to avoid affecting grant funding (some may add that the approach of some elected members is also a key factor in this). Similarly, it points to RSSs, Regional Assemblies and the IPC as being quangos which enable Government to hide behind their own policies. The Conservatives pledge that they will bring in primary legislation in the form of a wider Local Government & Housing Bill within the first year of forming a government to abolish regional planning bodies and targets although, they have also clearly indicated that they will consider whether to use the powers of the Secretary of State to revoke the RSSs in whole or in part in advance of the Bill. Without this tier of governance, the system will revert back to the local level with an overarching national framework.
Amending UCO to enable land to be used for any purpose so long as it is identified as suitable in the individual local plan
The Conservatives see new local plans being developed in full consultation and co-operation with the local community, where a range of uses would be specified as acceptable for individual areas and only certain uses specifically ruled out. This would then allow for a change of use without requiring planning permission, within the uses identified in the local plan. This is described as ‘flexible zoning’. This may be more difficult to reach agreement on than would first appear as specific areas are likely to be extremely protective over any potential change to High Streets, town centres or communities. It will be interesting to watch this unfold.
Abolishing the power of the Planning Inspectorate to rewrite local plans
The assumption will be that, unless the plan breaches national planning guidance or is procedurally unsound, the Inspector will have no jurisdiction over local priorities – therefore in theory, if a local authority in consultation with the community decided that it wanted none of a specific type of development (eg. housing) the Inspector could not override this. However, this is caveated by a statement that the Secretary of State and/or Inspector will not have the power to change housing targets but the Inspector will have to consider whether the LPA has conducted a professional assessment of the housing need for their locality.
Limiting appeals against local planning decisions
Appeals will be permitted from local residents – third party rights of appeal – but appeals will be limited to two grounds: Procedural irregularity and contravention of the local plan. In the case of the first, this would be considered not by PINs but by the Local Government Ombudsman (although there is no indication as to what power the Ombudsman will actually be given to implement a judgement and override any decision other than to say changes will be introduced to ‘give him some teeth’). IN the second instance the case will be considered by PINs. The policy goes on to say “In both cases, we will introduce a mechanism for weeding out frivolous or malicious appeals which would significantly delay development” with an assessment stage prior to an appeal going forward – this may well provide a good safeguard and reduce the time and costs of appeals, however, serious concerns must still exist over the potential for third party rights of appeal – it is not likely to encourage a depressed industry to cheer up and get the party going…
Create a new system of collaborative planning with bottom-up engagement, joint authority infrastructure plans etc
A process of collaborative democracy will define what people of a given locality mean by sustainable development for their area. Essentially, this means that an in-depth consultation process will need to take place on local plans involving every single resident and with each neighbourhood providing ‘modules’ to be incorporated into the local plan. In addition, local communities will be allocated a share of S106 money raised from all development within their neighbourhood.
Acknowledging the concerns expressed by the industry after the now infamous Caroline Spelman letter, the paper suggests that transitional arrangements will be put in place and a prescribed period will be established for new local plans to be completed. IN terms of housing numbers, this is anticipated to go back to original Option 1 numbers as identified by LPAs rather than prescribed by central Government – this also goes for affordable housing. As expected, the policy includes Local Housing Trusts and community development etc.
In addition, every new affordable housing unit will earn the LPA 125% of the council tax raised by the unit annually for 6 years to be paid through the Matching Fund. Affordable housing will also be exempt from the proposed replacement for S106/CIL – something that is likely to be well received by the industry. Local authorities will also have a ‘Duty to Co-operate’ and be encouraged to form Infrastructure Plans, joint or otherwise – this has long been a Government aspiration however, encouraging local authorities to work jointly has more success in some areas than others.
It will be unlawful for permission to be refused where a development conforms to the local plan, is accompanied by payment of the tariff and, in the case of larger projects, is the product of appropriate public consultation. There is a question over whether this is significantly different from the present system – it is frequently less about the conformity to policies and more about the preferences of councillors making planning decisions…
Amalgamate the IPC into a new ‘major infrastructure unit’ within the Planning Inspectorate
The IPC will become part of the Planning Inspectorate with a two tier process. Linear applications will be subject to a hybrid bill (similar to Crossrail) and non-linear major infrastructure projects will be subject to consideration by the new unit. The policy will also establish binding timetables for planning inquiries on major infrastructure and return final say to the Secretary of State. Applications in process will be subject to transitional arrangements to prevent them having to go back to square one – hopefully this should provide a little more stability in a rocky climate.
Windfarms will be encouraged both on and off shore. Communities which choose to host windfarms will be able to keep the business rates that they generate for six years. The Conservatives are also looking at the potential for community ownership of windfarms and discounted electricity.
Immediate Neighbours
Addressing the issue of community incentives and engagement, the paper proposes that if more than a small minority of residential neighbours in the immediate vicinity of a new development raise any objection then the conformity of the planning application with the local plan must be formally assessed. Further consultation on precise proportions and immediate vicinity will follow (although Parish Councils will be classed as immediate neighbours). The paper then goes onto state that “we anticipate that in many cases, developers will choose to avoid the need for formal assessment of the application and hence speed up the planning [process by reaching voluntary agreements o compensate nearby householders in return for their support”…
I am almost (but not quite) lost for words at this point. The implications of this area potentially huge – major developments over several hundred acres would presumably have many hundred immediate neighbours and with no idea at this precise moment what constitutes ‘more than a small minority’ it is uncertain territory for all major strategic sites. There also must surely be questions over the legitimacy of providing financial compensation – if that is what is meant by compensation – to individual residents as well as S106; potentially residents who would be inclined to be supportive may well be inclined to be less so if there is some financial gain? Not to mention that many people may oppose applications regardless of any incentives or compensation they are offered due to wider personal principles.
The paper also sets out legislation to ensure that councillors have the freedom to campaign and represent constituents during election periods as well as at other times, without breaking pre-determination rules. No indication is given as to whether or not they are also free to talk to applicants during this period…
Publish a single consolidated National Planning Framework
This would set out economic and environmental policies and delivery mechanisms (but no prescribed development numbers), abolish all but essential PPGs/PPSs and reduce these to simple guidance notes. The framework would be debated and voted on by both Houses of Parliament. The proposed huge reduction in rainforests required to print out planning policy is likely to be welcomed by the industry. Streamlining policy and creating a cohesive framework which has started from the same point rather than being introduced piecemeal is a positive step in principle – the implementation of this in reality remains to be seen.
PPS4 will be retained but with the needs test reintroduced as well as the competition test.
Other…
Parking – the ever thorny issue -communities want it, developers may want to provide it, policy says they can’t. Well, now they can! Parking levels will be at local discretion with no national targets.
The Conservatives will accept recommendations of the Killian Pretty Review and look to simplify the process further through extended permitted development rights.
Travellers will need planning permission for sites and local authorities will be able to remove travellers from non-permitted sites.
Overall, there is much within the paper which makes sense and would be welcomed – certainly in theory. However, the approach to third party rights of appeal and community incentives is a cause for concern . It should e remembered that this is not Government Policy and we would expect the Conservatives to continue to take soundings from the industry over the course of the next weeks and months to refine what will eventually become policy. Ultimately, even when it is all written, signed and sealed it won’t be until attempts are made to deliver it that we will know how it is actually going to work…
We will keep you updated.
Written by Stephen Byfield