Our review of the HCLG’s response to Planning for the Future
The Housing, Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Committee published their report on “The Future of the Planning System in England” on the 10 June 2021 and this included some extensive recommendations on the Government’s planning changes.
But what impact would these recommendations, if implemented, have on our planning system and what could they mean for developers and planning consultants? Our planning and development professionals have considered this essential question.
The three areas proposal
The HCLG Committee recommended a reconsideration of the Government’s ‘three areas proposals’ whereby local areas will be divided, through Local Plans, into three parts: growth, renewal, and protected, with different planning rules applying to each. The Committee remains “unpersuaded that the government’s zoning-based approach will produce a quicker, cheaper and democratic planning system”.
The report suggested that the Government’s approach was not detailed enough and suggested that additional categories should be included if the ‘three area proposals’ were to proceed. One such suggestion is for a ‘highly protected’ category alongside a ‘protected category’. This appears counter intuitive to the White Paper’s aims of simplifying the planning system. Surely the ‘protected’ category should be clear enough that development should not be directed to these areas. From the report, it appears that intention of the recommendation is not to stifle opportunities for rural development. If there is to be another ‘zone’ for these purposes, it might be best positioned between ‘renewal’ and ‘protect’, maybe a ‘countryside’ zone which supports essential infrastructure, small-scale employment and housing opportunities in rural areas.
Green Belt review
A review of the purpose of the Green Belt has been called for and the Committee have recommended that this includes “whether it continues to serve that purpose, how the public understand it, what should be criteria for inclusion and what additional protections might be appropriate”.
The development industry has long campaigned for a sensible conversation on Green Belt review to address wide-scale misconceptions outside of the industry. A review of national policy towards our Green Belts could also allow for housing and employment needs to be met in then right locations in local areas. The question is, how seriously will the Government take this recommendation, and will a Green Belt review be proposed as part of the White Paper?
Housing formula
The Committee agrees with the Government’s abandonment of its proposed formula for determining housing need but there remains a need for additional information on how the Government’s revised approach, announced in December 2020, might work in practice.
We agree with the report in that further details of the revised approach are required. Currently, it is unrealistic to expect England’s 20 largest urban areas to accommodate a 35% uplift in their housing numbers when many of these areas already struggle to meet their own housing needs due to constraints such as Green Belt and a lack of suitable and available development sites. There needs to be a balance in the delivery of a range of house types too, which a high-density approach in urban areas is unlikely to address in the longer-term.
Housing delivery penalties
The Committee suggested that the Government should impose time limits so that developers that fail to build out permissions are penalised. The committee urged the Government to “set a limit of 18 months following discharge of planning conditions for work to commence on site” whereafter permission “may be revoked”. Furthermore, following a further 18 months for development to be completed, the local authority “should be able to levy full council tax for each housing unit which has not been completed”.Specialist accommodation
The Committee support measures to promote specialist, affordable and social housing and has suggested that “the Government should create a C2R class for retirement communities to ensure clarity in the planning process”. The Committee has also called for there to be a “statutory obligation that Local Plans identify sites for specialist housing”.
The identification of sites for specialist housing within Local Plans would enable us to better plan for these types of development and is welcomed. The introduction of a C2R classification could help reduce complexity and confusion for providers and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) when planning for this type of specialist accommodation but might still not address the question of affordable housing provision and requirements for the later living sector.
Resources
The need for more funding for LPAs has been recognised in the report calling for the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to seek to obtain a Treasury commitment for an additional £500 million over four years.
It is a known fact that our LPAs are seriously under-resourced and the proposed planning reforms would put further pressure on the system.
We are pleased to see the call for the Treasury to commit to putting this in place and hope to see this translate into minimised delays in plan-making and decision-taking.
We also welcome the call for the return of virtual meetings, as we have all felt the benefits in time and resources saved over recent months.
With these additional measures in place, whilst HCLG have recommended removing the 30-month timeframe for the production of new Local Plans, it would be beneficial for revised expectations for LPAs to be set out, in order to keep this momentum for ‘planning for the future’.
These recommendations, whilst might be challenging to deliver, certainly provide food for thought and it will be interesting to see how the Government responds.