Basildon Conservatives response to the Government consultation on Planning reform.
Introduction
On 6 August 2020, the Government published a White Paper on planning reform entitled Planning for the Future. This White Paper – in essence a consultation document – is 63 pages in length and seeks views on the Government’s policy preferences for reforming Britain’s planning system.
The following response was drafted by Cllr Dr Richard Moore, Basildon Conservatives Spokesman for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure, and sent on behalf of the Conservative Group on Basildon Borough Council.
Executive Summary of Basildon Conservative’s Response
by Cllr Dr Richard Moore
The Government’s White Paper on Planning Reform is long-awaited and timely. It proposes what the Prime Minister has called a “radical reform, unlike anything we have seen since the Second World War”. Responses needed to be submitted by 29th October 2020, so the consultation has now closed. In the interests of transparency, Basildon Borough Council’s Conservative Group have decided to publish our response in full.
It is widely accepted that Britain’s decades-old, post-war era planning system is desperately outdated, clunky and in need of reform. We cautiously welcome the White Paper as a first step in discussing that reform and there are some elements in the White Paper that we support, including proposals for easier access to plans, renewed commitment to protecting the Green Belt, delivering infrastructure improvements and stronger enforcement. We particularly welcome the commitment to good design, as outlined by the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, chaired by the late Sir Roger Scruton.
As you will see, however, we raise significant concerns with the Government and have focused our response on several key proposals in the White Paper. We are particularly concerned with the proposed 30-month timescale to produce Local Plans. We have recent experience of this here in Basildon. It takes far too long but minimising the amount of public consultation is not an acceptable solution.
The White Paper proposes that, in future, Local Plans will allocate land under three categories: Growth, Renewal and Protected, with outline planning applications in Growth Areas being granted automatically with no public consultation and the public unable to comment on applications in Renewal Areas. We do not think that is right.
In our response, we have emphasised to Government that we would like to see easy access to the natural environment for local people included in Local Plans and that environmental protection policies and standards are not weakened.
We also emphasised the importance of infrastructure, including roads, GP surgeries, hospital provision, school provision and electric vehicle charging points, for new developments.
Full Response
Question 1 – What three words do you associate with the planning system in England?
Answer – Time-consuming / Complex/ Costly
Question 2 – Do you get involved with planning decisions in your local area?
Answer – Yes
Question 3 – Our proposals will make it much easier to access plans and contribute your views to planning decisions. How would you like to find out about plans and planning proposals in the future? [Social media/Online news/Newspaper/By post/Other-please specify]
Answer – By post/social media
‘Online news’ assumes access to the Internet and specifically to news channels. Local newspapers are rapidly losing their circulation, and many have disappeared altogether, so this would not be a good solution.
Question 4 – What are the top three priorities for planning in your local area?
[Building homes for young people/building homes for the homeless/protection of green spaces/the environment, biodiversity and action on climate change/increasing the affordability of housing/The design of new homes and places/Supporting the high street/Supporting the local economy/more or better local infrastructure/protection of existing heritage buildings or areas/Other – please specify]
Answer – Protecting green spaces/Infrastructure/The design of new places
It is vitally important that we continue to protect the Green Belt. Residents are concerned that these proposals may threaten the Green Belt.
Question 5 – Do you agree that Local Plans should be simplified in line with our proposals?
[Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – No
We are concerned that the proposals suggest that decision-making by Local Authorities and the ability of local communities to comment on development proposals is removed.
It is proposed to move the democratic oversight forward in the planning process to give communities an earlier and more meaningful voice. The term ‘more meaningful voice’ is not defined. What public consultation phases are proposed and when are they carried out? How long are the public consultation exercises? How many will there be? We currently have Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 consultations, each lasting between 6 and 8 weeks. What is proposed to replace them to reduce the overall time to get a Local Plan approved?
Question 6 – Do you agree with our proposals for streamlining the development management content of Local Plans, and setting out general development policies nationally? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – No
Policies set at a national level would be generic in nature and unable to address every nuance of design in the way that a local policy is able to provide. Gaps in the policy could risk the schemes going to appeal.
Question 7(a) – Do you agree with our proposals to replace existing legal and policy tests for Local Plans with a consolidated test of ‘sustainable development’. Which would include consideration of environmental impact? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Not sure
Little detail is given in the White Paper as to how Sustainability Appraisals and Environmental Impact Assessments would operate in practice, so it is difficult to answer positively.
Environmental Impact Assessments, Sustainability Appraisals and Strategic Environmental Assessments are key international and national regulatory requirements. It is difficult to see how a ‘consolidated test’ can be delivered.
Question 7(b) – How would strategic, cross-boundary issues be best planned for in the absence of a formal Duty to Cooperate?
Answer – Our experience of Duty to Cooperate is that it does not work in practice. Local Authorities do, of course, get together to resolve cross-boundary issues. This is, however, a tortuous process primarily driven by the need to provide evidence of ‘co-operating’ that would satisfy a planning inspector. In many respects, this ends up as a bureaucratic exercise in ‘box-ticking’. In the absence of a formal Duty to Cooperate process, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) could get together with neighbouring authorities and/or statutory consultees/providers to seek a workable solution that is acceptable to each LPA.
There needs to be an effective replacement to the Duty to Cooperate. Strategic planning across large geographic areas would be required, therefore some form of regional or sub-regional strategic planning should be developed.
Question 8(a) – Do you agree that a standard method for establishing housing requirements (that takes into account constraints) should be introduced? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Not sure
The standard method for calculating housing numbers will remain but has been revised. A new, nationally determined, binding housing requirement that LPAs would have to deliver through their Local Plans would apply. It is proposed that this nationally determined requirement would factor in land constraints, including the Green Belt. How will these land constraints be factored in? What will be the evidence required for balancing need versus the constraint in each area? Basildon Borough is 63% Green Belt. The responsibility for setting housing numbers that would demand Green Belt release would pass to the Government.
This would be a centrally defined approach for every Local Authority area. With no Duty to Cooperate mechanism as a tool for allocating housing numbers between LPAs, it is difficult to see how this would work.
What organisation will calculate the housing number? Currently, each Local Authority has the discretion to reduce housing targets to reflect environmental and land constraints in its area. This will no longer be the case and it will be the Government that considers the impact of such constraints on delivery, and then imposes legally binding housing numbers on each area. We are concerned that the proposed process will compromise local democracy.
Question 8(b) – Do you agree that affordability and the extent of existing urban areas are appropriate indicators of the quantity of development to be accommodated? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – No
The quantity of development to be accommodated should be based on the capacity of the area to accommodate housing together with the associated infrastructure.
Question 9(a) – Do you agree that there should be automatic outline permission for areas for substantial development (Growth Areas) with faster routes for detailed consent? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – No
This would not allow the public to comment on aspects of the proposal. It lacks democratic oversight. It is unclear if there would still be a requirement for a Planning Committee to sit, which would allow public participation and elected representative oversight.
It is unclear how the balance of employment land to land allocated for housing is to be decided.
Planning decisions would be delegated to planning officers at the expense of democratic oversight.
The lack of employment land is a concern for supply chains throughout the UK. The consultation fails to address the issue of balancing housing growth and employment land growth and employment opportunities. Brownfield sites need to be clearly defined as ‘Growth’ or ‘Renewal’ areas.
We are concerned that Growth Areas can be allocated in isolation from a broader-looking strategic plan.
The level of detail required to designate an area as a Growth Area needs to be defined.
What level of detail would be required for a Renewal Area?
Question 9(b) – Do you agree with our proposals above for the consent arrangements for Renewal and Protected Areas? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – No
This would not allow the public to comment on aspects of the proposal. It lacks democratic oversight. It is unclear whether up-to-date ecological data will be used.
It is also unclear which organisation designates areas as Growth/Renewal/Protected.
There is no mention on how a meaningful review of the Green Belt by LPAs should be carried out as part of the Local Plan development process. There is no indication that there would be some form of national review of the Green Belt by Government, as Green Belt release is much too sensitive to be dealt with at the local level as many LPAs have found.
Question 9(c) – Do you think there is a case for allowing new settlements to be brought forward under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – No
Settlements do not appear to be part of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime currently. The regime includes such projects as the M25 Junction 28 improvements, the Sizewell C Project, Thurrock Flexible Generating Plant and the M54 to M6 Link Road. The NSIP would appear to be an inappropriate vehicle for settlements. We would be concerned that the NSIP could override local requirements and local democracy, which would be unacceptable.
Question 10 – Do you agree with our proposals to make decision-making faster and more certain? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – No
The technology for ‘greater digitization’ is not currently available. Modernising planning systems in local government is not defined. A new, modular, software landscape is proposed but it seems unlikely to be launched successfully in the near or mid-term future.
‘Data-rich’ planning application registers and digital templates for planning notices will be created – again, the track record of successive governments for delivering major computerisation or digitisation initiatives is not encouraging.
There is also the issue of cost and whether Government will pay LPAs to implement this.
Question 11 – Do you agree with our proposals for accessible, web-based Local Plans? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Not sure
Interactive map-based Local Plans will be developed built upon digital principles – the Government proposes only to publish a guide therefore the rest is up to the LPA.
Digitising plans will require investment. How long will this digitisation take and what would be the cost?
A “new digital civic engagement process is to be enabled”. How will engagement work for those residents who do not have access to a computer or smartphone?
“We want to support local authorities to radically rethink how they produce local plans”. Most of the mechanics/requirements of a Local Plan are, however, driven by the Government’s requirements.
We are concerned as to how this digitisation will be funded.
It is difficult to see how significant and noticeable improvements to the community engagement process will be achieved over and above the process already in place.
Question 12 – Do you agree with our proposals for a 30-month statutory timescale for the production of Local Plans? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – No
The 30 months can only be achieved by substantially changing the requirements of a Local Plan. It appears from the White Paper that public engagement will be substantially reduced. We are concerned that it is proposed the public will have a word count limit on their responses and the 30 months will be delivered at the expense of public engagement. The evidence-base required today would have to be substantially reduced to achieve this. Highways modeling, for example, can take months to develop.
Local councils will have to “radically and profoundly re-invent the ambition, depth and breadth with which they engage with communities”. It is unclear how these reforms will democratise the planning process and deliver on the statement “we want to hear the views of a wide range of people and groups”.
Every LPA in England must prepare a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in accordance with Part 2, Section 18 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act (2004, as amended). This is a statement of the LPA’s policy on the involvement of anyone who has an interest in matters in relation to planning in the area when it prepares and reviews its Local Plan. The SCI seeks to ensure active, meaningful, and continued involvement of local communities and stakeholders in the statutory planning process. Any changes to the planning system will need to address the SCI process.
The use of social media/networks to provide the views of residents needs careful thought. This restricts potential consultees to those with a social media account, thereby limiting the democratic reach. Not everyone has or wants access to social media networks. There is a danger that a large proportion of the population will be ‘ignored’ – particularly the elderly and those with learning difficulties. How will social media be reflected in the SCI?
The voice of the community can be heard from the beginning of the process using digital technology to provide ‘new ways’ to feed in their views to the system but it cannot be a full replacement of today’s engagement approaches. Site notices attached to lampposts might be old fashioned, but they have the advantage of drawing the attention of residents who live in the area and walk past the site.
It is unclear what evidence is required to support Local Plans and to what level of detail is required. Evidence will of course be required from developers, statutory consultees, including Highways, electricity, gas, and water suppliers. For example, LPAs must conduct a Habitats Regulations Assessment screening where the Local Plan could affect a habitat site.
We do not understand why the role of the Planning Inspectorate has not been included in the White Paper. We are concerned that the final decision on a Local Plan is with the Inspectorate. These are unelected people, answerable only to the Secretary of State. A uniform set of rules would be required for the Planning Inspectorate.
A statutory timetable for Local Plans is, in our view, unachievable. There are too many steps to deliver a Local Plan, including public engagement, to make 30 months achievable.
Overall the White Paper appears to centralise the planning process at the expense of locally-led planning.
We are also concerned at the omission of Minerals & Waste Local Plans in the consultation.
Question 13(a) – Do you agree that Neighbourhood Plans should be retained in the reformed planning system? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Yes
The role of the Neighbourhood Plan and its status alongside the new Local Plan system is unclear.
It is unclear how the public will participate in the development of Neighbourhood Plans. The White Paper implies that public participation will only take place at the plan development stage, as the principle of development would be agreed at the Local Plan development stage.
Confirmation is needed that Neighbourhood Plans would be able to continue to include detailed design guidance and codes to shape development in their locality.
Clarity is required on whether Neighbourhood Plans may be able to include specific development management policies for their locality.
Parish Councils lack the planning expertise to produce Neighbourhood Plans and therefore employ consultants to develop the plan at cost to the taxpayer. The taxpayer is already paying for the LPA to develop its Local Plan, so why should they pay again for a local Neighbourhood Plan as well?
The extension and adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan concept to small areas, such as individual streets, is proposed but with little information as to how this could work alongside the new Local Plan. If conflict arises between the two, how will that conflict be resolved?
Question 13(b) – How can the neighbourhood planning process be developed to meet our objectives, such as in the use of digital tools and reflecting community preferences about design?
Answer – The Parish Council would be required to invest in IT for digital tools to deliver the Neighbourhood Plan at a further cost to the taxpayer. We are concerned that the Parish Council may not have the manpower or skills to deliver this and, consequently, would employ consultants to develop the plan at the taxpayers’ cost.
Question 14 – Do you agree there should be a stronger emphasis on the build out of developments? And, if so, what further measures would you support? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – No
In this area one developer has the option on buying the land and, subject to planning permission, developing the site. The proposal for large sites that have a variety of development types by different builders is unlikely to happen. There is currently no power proposed to force developers to build out. Build out rates typically reflect local market demand and forcing developers to build out may not be economically viable.
Question 15 – What do you think about the design of new development that has happened recently in your area? [Not sure or indifferent/beautiful and/or well-designed/Ugly and/or poorly-designed/There hasn’t been any/Other – please specify]
Answer – Ugly and/or poorly-designed
The design of new developments has typically been ‘cookie-cutter’ designs by the larger builders. Many developments are not in keeping with the local area. We have found that designs from smaller builders (1-5 houses) have often been better.
Question 16 - Sustainability is at the heart of our proposals. What is your priority for sustainability in your area? [Less reliance on cars/More green and open spaces/Energy efficiency of new buildings/More trees/ Other]
Answer – More green and open spaces/energy efficiency of new buildings/Infrastructure
We would like to see that easy access to the natural environment for local people and protection policies and standards are not weakened.
Question 17 – Do you agree with our proposals for improving the production and use of design guides and codes? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Not sure
Design codes would be subject to consultation. It is unclear, however, what form this should take, how a community’s preferred design(s) would be selected, and how the Local Authority could take action if there were any breaches of the code. Where an LPA is unable to produce a local design code, it would default to a national code. Although there is a risk that national design codes may focus on the exterior appearance of buildings rather than providing details on how buildings will function as places to live. There is concern that national design codes could result in ‘cookie-cutter’ houses across the nation.
The concept of ‘design’, ‘good design’ and ‘beauty’ is highly subjective, and it is unclear how innovative, non-conforming designs would be granted consent under such a system.
The Government will need to clarify how any ‘design code’ will integrate with Permitted Development rights. Consideration of design matters through ‘Prior Approval’, at present, is limited to the external appearance of buildings, so does not allow the application of residential space standards and other internal design issues.
Question 18 – Do you agree that we should establish a new body to support design coding and building better places, and that each authority should have a chief officer for design and place-making? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Not sure
A new body (similar to CABE – Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment – now part of the Design Council) could be established to support the delivery of design codes in every part of the country and to reflect the work of the ‘Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’. CABE was merged into the Design Council in 2011. We are not sure, therefore, about the sustainability of a new body over the long term.
The position of Chief Officer for Design and Place-making is welcomed, with greater weight afforded to design. This would help in the consistency of decision-making and could support the training and up-skilling of planning staff, as well as Planning Committee members.
Question 19 – Do you agree with our proposal to consider how design might be given greater emphasis in the strategic objectives for Homes England? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Yes
Question 20 – Do you agree with our proposals for implementing a fast track for beauty? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Yes
We have the Essex Design Guide, which sets out development types for Essex.
Question 21 –
[There was no Question 21 – presumably an error]
Question 22 - When new development happens in your area, what is your priority for what comes with it? [More affordable housing/more or better infrastructure (such as transport, schools, health provision)/Design of new buildings/More shops and/or employment space/Green space/Don’t know/ Other]
Answer – More or better infrastructure, including roads, GP surgeries, hospital provision, school provision, electric vehicle charging points/ Design of new buildings/ Green space.
Question 23(a) - Should the Government replace the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 planning obligations with a new consolidated infrastructure levy, which is charged as a fixed proportion of development value above a set threshold? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Not sure
It is not clear how this would work, as the White Paper proposals contain several options as to how formulas for setting levy charges could be calculated.
It appears that to avoid Local Authorities being disadvantaged, the proposed infrastructure levy would need to replicate everything which is possible under Section 106 (S106) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Levy would be based at the point at which planning permission is granted and payable upon the occupation of developments. It is not clear whether this would be payable upon the occupation of the first unit or the last unit within a scheme. This is unlikely to incentivise developers to speed up build times, with the LPA having no control over developers to implement planning consents or to speed-up build-out rates. We would prefer that the proposed levy be paid upfront at the start of works as happens under the current CIL and S106 regimes.
There needs to be a clear link between the levy and the actual infrastructure required.
Question 23(b) –Should the Infrastructure Levy rates be set nationally at a single rate, set nationally at an area-specific rate, or set locally? [Nationally at a single rate/Nationally at an area specific rate/Locally]
Answer – Set Locally
It is difficult to set a one-size-fits-all rate of tax that balances the need to deliver infrastructure with the desire to encourage rather than prevent development.
Question 23(c) – Should the Infrastructure Levy aim to capture the same amount of value overall, or more value, to support greater investment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities? [Same amount overall/More value/Less value/Not sure]
Answer – Not sure
The Infrastructure Levy would be better placed to capture uplifts in land value than S106. However, it functions like a tax and is a one-off charge. S106 agreements can be varied after their initial signing. Where issues arise, additional obligations can be placed on the developer. This would not be possible under these proposals.
Question 23(d) – Should we allow local authorities to borrow against the Infrastructure Levy, to support infrastructure delivery in their area? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – No
The proposal is that Local Authorities would be allowed to borrow against their anticipated Infrastructure Levy receipts to forward fund any infrastructure. This may not be the best use of Local Authority funds, especially as other reforms and consultation proposals appear to make it more challenging to deliver affordable homes. Developers will not be expected to pay to front-load infrastructure delivery. It would appear the Government expects Local Authorities to take on millions of pounds worth of debt to pay for the delivery of infrastructure upfront to enable developments to come forward at a later point in time. All the financial risk appears to be transferred to the Local Authority and, therefore, the local taxpayer.
Question 24 – Do you agree that the scope of the reformed Infrastructure Levy should capture changes of use through permitted development rights? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Yes
Question 25(a) – Do you agree that we should aim to secure at least the same amount of affordable housing under the Infrastructure Levy, and as much on-site affordable provision as at present? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Yes
Question 25(b) – Should affordable housing be secured as in-kind payment towards the Infrastructure Levy, or as a ‘right to purchase’ at discounted rates for local authorities? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Not sure
The consultation does not mention in-kind contributions other than for affordable housing. Will there be a mechanism to make the development acceptable aside from the developer including the infrastructure within the planning application?
Question 25(c) – If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, should we mitigate against local authority overpayment risk? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – No
Paragraph 4.23 is clear that the Government could require that if the value secured through in-kind units is greater than the final levy liability then the developer has no right to reclaim overpayments. We would support this.
Question 25(d) – If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, are there additional steps that would need to be taken to support affordable housing quality? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Not sure
Affordable housing should be to the same standard and quality as a developer’s normal housing offer.
Question 26 – Should local authorities have fewer restrictions over how they spend the Infrastructure Levy? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – Not sure
LPAs would be required to ring-fence funding for the delivery of affordable housing along with delivering key pieces of infrastructure before seeking to deliver wider infrastructure and services benefits. The White Paper is not clear, however, on how two-tier authorities would handle this, where the County Council is responsible for highways and schools.
It is important that the Infrastructure Levy is used to ameliorate the development in the specific locality and is not used on grandiose projects elsewhere in the City/Borough/District.
Question 26(a) – If yes, should an affordable housing ‘ring-fence’ be developed? [Yes/No/Not sure]
Answer – N/A
Question 27 – Do you have any views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?
Answer – No
OTHER POINTS
1. We strongly support stronger enforcement, as outlined in paragraph 5.28 (Proposal 24).
2. It is important that the Government recognises the shortage of qualified planners. The consultation states that “there is a real opportunity for planners to redesign their individual roles and change perceptions of their profession”. Unless the shortage of planners is addressed, the redesign of roles and responsibilities will not happen (or will happen only sporadically across the country).
Cllr. Dr. Richard Moore for and on behalf of the Conservative Group at Basildon Borough Council.
22nd October 2020
The Conservative Group at Basildon Borough Council includes: Councillors A. Baggott, A. Hedley, M. Buckley, S. Allen, D. Dadds, J. Henry, S. Hillier, P. Holliman, G. Jeffery, D. Lawrence, L. Mackenzie, R. Moore, C. Morris, D. Morris, T. Sargent, A. Schrader, S. Sullivan and P. Turner