Expect major changes through the Levelling-up bill and changes to the NPPF – but not soon
By
Robert Bruce & Darren Williamson
Share this:
The government is pushing ahead with potentially wide-reaching changes to the planning system through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The introduction of National Development Management Policies in the bill has sparked much debate because it allows the government to override inconsistent Local Plan policies. The bill also limits the scope of councils’ Local Plans to locally specific matters, with nationwide issues covered by the national policies.
A new Infrastructure Levy is proposed to replace the current Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), except in London, where the Mayor of London’s CIL will continue to be used, and in Wales. The new Infrastructure Levy differs from CIL because it will apply automatically across the whole of England and include affordable housing as well other infrastructure. CIL has proven less appealing in the north of England where land values are lower, indicating that the new levy is likely to be set relatively low in the north or risk undermining development viability.
Another area of controversy is the introduction of new measures penalising developers for failing to build consented developments or building too slowly. Details of the financial penalties have yet to emerge, but the government has recently introduced a bill clause that allows councils in England to decline to determine planning applications in such circumstances.
An area of ongoing controversy following Brexit is the bill’s proposal to introduce a new system of Environmental Outcomes Reports to replace EU processes for environmental assessment. The way this measure is implemented may depend on how “hard” Brexit ends up being in negotiations with the EU.
New powers will allow ministers to “repeal and revoke” legislation relating to planning, development and compulsory purchase to facilitate consolidation. While the consolidation of legislation would be beneficial, the powers have raised concerns on opposition benches that it may be a trojan horse for introducing significant changes at the same time.
Other changes make sense, including the strengthening and tightening up of planning enforcement legislation, increase in planning application fees (which are expected to rise by a third) and the requirement of water companies to upgrade sewage treatment works to unblock the grant of planning permissions in sensitive areas affected by nutrient pollution.
NPPF consultation
The accompanying consultation on potential NPPF changes ends on 2 March. The most controversial proposal is the removal of the requirement on councils to maintain a five-year housing supply, providing their housing requirement set out in strategic policies is less than five years old. This would remove the ability to approve planning applications in circumstances deemed contrary to what the council’s restrictive planning policies indicate, for example, countryside policies. The existing national policy has caused considerable fallout between the government and the 1922 Committee, where the real power on this issue lies, given its impact on the Tory shires.
Another notable proposal is to strengthen and boost the status of Neighbourhood Development Plans. These are plans that are prepared by parish councils or neighbourhood groups and voted on in a referendum by people within the neighbourhood.
The bill and NPPF proposals indicate just how long it takes to introduce planning changes and make a difference on the ground. We are not anticipating noticeable changes on the ground before the next general election. That means planning has most likely slipped from the government’s radar, while the housing crisis continues unabated.
The current proposals also continue to indicate the dichotomy in government policy between greater centralisation of planning and giving locals greater say over development.
Robert Bruce is national head of the planning legal team and Darren Williamson is national head of real estate at Freeths
Do you have a legal & professional story you want to share with your built environment colleagues and peers? Do you have a comment piece you are keen to write? Is there a legal & professional story you think we should be covering?
Discover:
Expect major changes through the Levelling-up bill and changes to the NPPF – but not soon
By
Robert Bruce & Darren Williamson
Share this:
The government is pushing ahead with potentially wide-reaching changes to the planning system through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The introduction of National Development Management Policies in the bill has sparked much debate because it allows the government to override inconsistent Local Plan policies. The bill also limits the scope of councils’ Local Plans to locally specific matters, with nationwide issues covered by the national policies.
A new Infrastructure Levy is proposed to replace the current Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), except in London, where the Mayor of London’s CIL will continue to be used, and in Wales. The new Infrastructure Levy differs from CIL because it will apply automatically across the whole of England and include affordable housing as well other infrastructure. CIL has proven less appealing in the north of England where land values are lower, indicating that the new levy is likely to be set relatively low in the north or risk undermining development viability.
Another area of controversy is the introduction of new measures penalising developers for failing to build consented developments or building too slowly. Details of the financial penalties have yet to emerge, but the government has recently introduced a bill clause that allows councils in England to decline to determine planning applications in such circumstances.
An area of ongoing controversy following Brexit is the bill’s proposal to introduce a new system of Environmental Outcomes Reports to replace EU processes for environmental assessment. The way this measure is implemented may depend on how “hard” Brexit ends up being in negotiations with the EU.
New powers will allow ministers to “repeal and revoke” legislation relating to planning, development and compulsory purchase to facilitate consolidation. While the consolidation of legislation would be beneficial, the powers have raised concerns on opposition benches that it may be a trojan horse for introducing significant changes at the same time.
Other changes make sense, including the strengthening and tightening up of planning enforcement legislation, increase in planning application fees (which are expected to rise by a third) and the requirement of water companies to upgrade sewage treatment works to unblock the grant of planning permissions in sensitive areas affected by nutrient pollution.
NPPF consultation
The accompanying consultation on potential NPPF changes ends on 2 March. The most controversial proposal is the removal of the requirement on councils to maintain a five-year housing supply, providing their housing requirement set out in strategic policies is less than five years old. This would remove the ability to approve planning applications in circumstances deemed contrary to what the council’s restrictive planning policies indicate, for example, countryside policies. The existing national policy has caused considerable fallout between the government and the 1922 Committee, where the real power on this issue lies, given its impact on the Tory shires.
Another notable proposal is to strengthen and boost the status of Neighbourhood Development Plans. These are plans that are prepared by parish councils or neighbourhood groups and voted on in a referendum by people within the neighbourhood.
The bill and NPPF proposals indicate just how long it takes to introduce planning changes and make a difference on the ground. We are not anticipating noticeable changes on the ground before the next general election. That means planning has most likely slipped from the government’s radar, while the housing crisis continues unabated.
The current proposals also continue to indicate the dichotomy in government policy between greater centralisation of planning and giving locals greater say over development.
Robert Bruce is national head of the planning legal team and Darren Williamson is national head of real estate at Freeths
LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL
Do you have a legal & professional story you want to share with your built environment colleagues and peers? Do you have a comment piece you are keen to write? Is there a legal & professional story you think we should be covering?
REGISTER TODAY
to get our daily newsletter, with all the latest news, views and analysis, delivered straight to your inbox – for FREE!
BE CONNECTED
We offer a wide variety of business-critical content and networking services to suit every budget
BE
SOCIAL
RELATED
STORIES
The future for Assets of Community Value
What impact will changes to the UK’s illegal working regime have on the construction industry?
The government has finally responded on commercial MEES, but uncertainty remains