The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill returns to the House of Commons for consideration of the Lords’ amendments on 19th April 2004. The Federation fully supports the Government’s objective of creating a simple, fast, high quality and accessible planning system. Reform of the system to achieve these objectives is essential if the Government’s Communities Plan and follow up to the Barker Review is to help provide a sustainable long-term response to the need for more new housing. This requires that the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill contribute as fully as possible to these goals.
Following the Bills consideration in the House of Lords, provisions that are of key importance to the achievement of its objectives are considered to be:
Regional Spatial Strategies Part 1 of the Bill
As amended, Part 1 of the Bill (the production of Regional Spatial Strategies) will only apply if an elected assembly for the region has been established.
This provision would introduce real uncertainty to the status of future regional and local plans. HBF fully supports the need for appropriate consultation arrangements and involvement by elected representatives in plan making. The amendment requiring a statement of community involvement for the production of Regional Spatial Strategies is both necessary and supported by HBF. Similarly, the new requirement for the Secretary of State to give reasons for their amendments will contribute significantly to a transparent decision making process.
HBF believes, therefore, that these requirements provide adequately for community consultation on, and adoption of, local development documents. Coupled with the Governments proposal for county councils to provide advice in relation to Regional Spatial Strategies there is no threat of a supposed democratic deficit at the important regional level of planning guidance.
Properly formulated and statutory Regional Spatial Strategies will bring improvements to both regional and local plans, including a coherent regional vision for meeting new housing requirements. It is vital that these benefits are not undermined by a provision introducing major uncertainty into future arrangements.
HBF believes that Part 1 of the Bill should be applied as soon as possible and not applied only if an elected assembly for the region has been established.
Outline Planning Consent
HBF welcomes the House of Lords proposal to remove the Governments power to repeal Section 92 of the Act (outline planning consent) by deleting it from the schedule of repeals.
The granting of outline consent is essential to securing the financial go ahead for development proposals. Land is frequently purchased subject to such consent and it is the granting of outline consent that enables a land value to be determined so providing the assurance needed to release funding.
HBF has participated fully in discussions with the Government on the means of providing additional details with applications for outline consent as a way of reinforcing confidence among all stakeholders in this vital part of the planning system. The proposed solution of requiring appropriate design statements to be submitted with all types of application is considered both practical and realistic and the industry will be happy to work with government to develop the guidance and details of how the proposals will be implemented.
It is therefore essential that the House of Commons confirm its support for the retention of Section 92 of the Principal Act.
Repeat Applications
To deliver the Communities Plans objectives, the planning system needs to operate on a balanced basis that does not favour the interests of any individual and leads to timely decision-making.
If such balance is to be maintained an applicant must be able to resubmit an application if they believe that they have overcome the original reasons for refusal of permission. It should not be solely at the discretion of the local planning authority as to whether or not the revised application should be determined. It is, therefore, essential that a second application can be made following a previous refusal of permission. Without such a right projects and sites will be at risk of being unnecessarily sterilised for a period of two years before a planning authority is required to consider a new application.
HBF therefore, very much welcomes the Governments amendment to the Bill permitting an applicant to submit a second application after an initial refusal.
HBF seeks the House of Commons confirmation of support for this amendment.
Duration of Planning Permission
The HBF welcomes the House of Lords amendment that would result in the default time period for implementation of planning consents remaining five years as in the current Act.
A period of 3 years, as previously proposed, would, potentially, threaten the delivery of the most complex development projects increasingly, for example, those on brownfield sites requiring significant site clearance, decontamination and preparation.
Such a short default period risks creating a disincentive for new development. In practice the industry relies on a constant stream of consents and needs a certainty of supply over a 5 year forward period in order to help manage the substantial risk inherent in the sector. As there is no automatic renewal of expired consents, consents do not continue to build up cumulatively as suggested in some quarters. With an increased focus on brownfield development, we believe the effective delivery of new housing requires a 5 year default period for the life of consents.
In association with this amendment, the Lords removed the governments proposals to stop the clock if an application is taken to judicial review. If the default period for consents is to be reduced to 3 years it is essential that this safety net be reintroduced. With judicial review procedures taking an increasingly long time to resolve there is considerable evidence that a reduced consent life would result in an increase in judicial review cases as anti-development groups use this route to run down the clock.
It is, therefore, important that the Lords position on this issue is maintained and that the default period for planning consent remains at 5 years.
Inspectors reports on Local Development Documents
The Lords have removed the provision in the Bill that gives a binding power on the planning authority of inspectors reports on Local Development Documents (LDDs). As now proposed, the authority may take account of other matters that they think are relevant that is, potentially re-opening discussions about important aspects of the Documents, including housing numbers.
HBF believes this amendment would create a great deal of uncertainty for both developers and local communities who would have entered into consultation procedures on the adoption of LDDs in good faith, but may still find that they are subject to delay and doubt over the final decision making process.
The Bills provisions on local consultation and the information to be provided in support of planning applications should enable all relevant issues to be considered effectively, either in the adoption of LDDs or decisions on individual applications. Inquiries will, therefore, focus solely on matters on which it has been unable to reach consensus. Thus the role of the Inspector should be as an arbitrator and their report should be a completion of the matter and binding in the same way as other appeal decisions are binding.
The need for inspectors reports being binding on an authority is essential if local authorities are to set their own level of planning obligation charge. If reports are not binding, authorities proposed charges will not be open to independent scrutiny and decision and the proposed system would risk, at best, falling into disrepute but at worst, being unworkable.
The Lords amendment should not be supported and inspectors reports should be binding upon the authority.
For any further discussion or clarification please contact:
john.slaughter@hbf.co.uk(John Slaughter) Director of external affairs: 020 7960 1604
andrew.whitaker@hbf.co.uk(Andrew Whitaker) National Planning Advisor: 020 7960 1626