Colin Brown, head of planning & development, Carter Jonas
The government has set itself an ambitious target of delivering 1.5m homes this Parliament and the size and scope of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill demonstrates how determined ministers are to try and meet that target.
The Bill draws on some arguably successful measures from the days since the planning system as we know it first emerged in the late 1940s: we had the development corporations which shaped the new towns programme of the 1950s and ‘60s and the regional spatial development strategies last seen in the early 2000s.
But the new Bill is more than a rehash of previous government policy: it introduces new initiatives such as a national scheme of delegation and a national nature restoration fund, both of which are very welcome.
Spatial development strategies
The proposed approach to regional spatial planning has been much heralded. Most planning consultants and developers will agree that the Regional Spatial Strategies of the late 1990s were generally pretty successful, allowing infrastructure to be delivered around planned growth over a wider city-region area. While some areas of the country have already begun to work collaboratively through planning initiatives in the form of combined authorities or joint local plans, this more universal application of regional planning is welcome.
As with many of the initiatives in this Bill, timing may be an issue: the Bill must progress through both Houses of Parliament and will inevitably attract some opposition. Additionally, the government is committed to local government reform alongside planning reform. How will a changed approach to strategic planning be implemented alongside emerging plans for devolution? There are many moving parts to the reforms package and the government will need to ensure that measures are compatible with one another and will deliver the planned levels of growth.
Development corporations
The introduction of development corporations resonates with the government’s proposals for spatial development strategies and devolution but there remains a lack of clarity about how this will all be delivered in practice. In Cambridgeshire for example it is recognised that a development corporation is likely to be necessary to facilitate the substantial growth that is planned, and it is therefore a logical step for the government to take. But the $64m question is how any future development corporation will work alongside the existing authorities (Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council) in terms of planning powers (not forgetting that we also have a mayoral authority). What planning powers would each of those local authorities maintain and which organisation would retain, gain or lose planning powers?
It must also be noted that development corporations will still require significant resources, and it remains to be seen whether these will be made available in order to secure the anticipated growth.
Councils setting their own planning fees
This is a new initiative, and the majority of larger-scale developers will see the inevitable (and further) increase in planning fees as a drop in the ocean in relation to the overall cost of securing planning consent – not least the cost of delays which it is hoped would be mitigated.
However, we should not overlook the impact that this may have on SMEs – does allowing authorities to set their own fee levels without any oversight from government equate to putting foxes in charge of the hen house?
Compulsory purchase
The proposed changes to compulsory purchase rules, specifically the attempted elimination of ‘hope value’ are likely to be more contentious amongst landowners and farmers, who tend to own much of the greenfield land that will need to be released to facilitate growth.
The government has tried to quell concerns by stating that compulsory purchase will not be used excessively and will only be used as a last resort, but it is not clear what is meant by ‘excessive’ and what would constitute a ‘last resort’. What level of return does the government consider a landowner should reasonably enjoy, and how would this address different geographic areas?
We suspect that there will be a lot of debate around this and some farming and landowning interest groups have already reacted negatively.
National scheme of delegation
The proposed national scheme of delegation would set out which types of applications are determined by planning officers and which should go to committees. This is a very welcome change.
Currently, many local authorities have wildly different schemes of delegation, with planning applications being largely determined by planning officers in some, and mainly by planning committees in others.
This move should certainly expedite the process and reduce the number of rogue decisions made – by which I mean members voting against officers’ clear recommendations. Having clear parameters on this issue is long overdue.
Nature restoration fund
The proposed nature restoration fund is a welcome new initiative. Currently, every planning application achieves some nature restoration through biodiversity net gain, but the impact from smaller schemes can be modest and highly localised. That is not, in itself, a bad thing, but a national fund through which all developers can contribute has the potential to develop the scalable solutions that are needed, and from the developers’ point of view, the mitigation is relatively quick and easy, enabling much-needed development to progress without delay.
