Planning and the “Levelling Up and Regeneration” Bill
Scarcely had the ink dried on the Queen’s Speech than Michael Gove’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) hit the streets. The Bill has already had its First Reading, and the Second Reading is scheduled for 24th May. This note about the planning aspects of the Bill has been prepared by the London Forum of Civic Societies; and a fuller version is available here on the Forum’s website.
What is in the Bill?
Weighing in at a massive 338 pages for the Bill itself and 248 pages of explanatory notes, this Bill has clearly been gestating for many months. This briefing is based principally on the Explanatory Notes, 37 pages of which are devoted to changes to the planning system and a further 45 to associated matters such as the proposed Infrastructure Levy, Development Corporations and the forced letting of empty High Street properties – see here or here. There is also an accompanying DLUHC Policy Paper – here – which sets out the rationale for many of the Bill’s proposals.
The question on everyone’s lips will be how much of the 2020 Planning White Paper has survived the change from Jenrick to Gove in the face of widespread criticism, not least from the Government’s own backbenches. The answer seems to be rather more than appears at first sight. True the hugely unpopular classification of all land as Growth, Renewal or Protection zones with presumed planning consent in Growth and (to a lesser extent) Renewal zones has gone, as have mandatory housing targets aimed at achieving the Government’s goal of 300,000 new homes a year. However the provision for Development Management policies to be set nationally by DHULC is retained.
The main provisions in the Bill that are of interest to London Forum members appear to be as follows:
Uniform data standards to be implemented nationwide: this will enable information about the planning system to be collected, manipulated, aggregated and displayed across Planning Authority boundaries.
Local Plans are to focus on “locally specific matters”, and will be complemented by a suite of National Development Management Policies dealing with “issues that apply in most areas”. Such policies may not be contradicted or repeated in Local Plans, and take precedence over Local Plans. We have substantial concerns about this proposal, as described below.
Planning applications to be determined “in accordance with the Development Plan and any National Development Management policies unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise”. This a two-edged sword; the word “strongly” is to be welcomed – unless the Development Plan is trumped by a host of intrusive and unwelcome National Development Management policies
Support for the Street Votes concept for community-led gentle densification of urban areas where residents wish, though the detail has yet to be provided
A Design Code must be developed for the whole area of each Local Planning Authority (LPA). Do we know what one looks like, how granular it should be and how it takes account of the varied character of most LPAs?
To make permanent an existing temporary power allowing the Secretary of State to require developers for specific categories of development to consult the local community before submitting a planning application. This has hitherto been used only for onshore wind farms; the Bill contains nothing to widen its use
A new Infrastructure Levy will largely replace S106 obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The rate will be set by each LPA, underpinned by “infrastructure delivery strategies”, Regulations to follow. This will be hugely important as the new Levy is intended to generate the funds to pay for affordable housing that would otherwise have been negotiated site by site. Much work still has to be done here.
A new regime of Environmental Outcomes reports will replace the current EU processes of Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment. This is work-in-progress
The Bill introduces a new neighbourhood planning tool called a 'neighbourhood priorities statement', providing communities with a "simpler and more accessible way to set out their key priorities and preferences for their local areas.”
A number of loopholes preventing effective enforcement against planning breaches are closed
New provisions will allow local authorities to serve completion notices where work has started on site but has not been finished. The notice may state a date by which the work must be completed, after which the planning permission for the unfinished parts will cease if the work is not completed. This is designed to accelerate build-out and counter concealed Land-banking.
The Bill makes changes to compulsory purchase powers to give local authorities powers to assemble sites for regeneration and make better use of brownfield land.
LPAs will have the power to forcibly let high street shops that have been vacant for more than 12 months.
Alongside the Bill, DLUHC has announced that Planning charges are to be raised by 25-35% to fund a strengthening of local authority Planning resources. Will this be enough, given all the changes and enhanced expectations?
Unsurprisingly, the Bill makes no mention of community groups’ longstanding wish to see a 3rd Party Right of Appeal enacted for cases where planning consent is granted in contravention of adopted policies.
Our Planning Committee will consider the Bill and its implications at its next meeting.
“Planoraks” seeking a more comprehensive view of the Bill will find links to some helpful commentaries at https://simonicity.com