Changes to the current planning system white paper
1 A compulsory algorithm for housing numbers
Would impose massive hikes in housing numbers in London and rural midlands and southeast and reduce numbers in the northeast and urban areas.
A backbench rebellion has forced a U turn on this, but the government has not said what it will replace it with. Currently, an independently assessed need is set by consultants in a report.
2 Increase affordable housing thresholds from 10 to 50 houses.
Developments large as 50 houses could get away with no affordable housing. This is apparently to make them viable for small builders. Rural councils would (for the time being) be able to set their own thresholds.
The local government association says that this policy will have a ‘devastating effect’ on the delivery of affordable housing.
3 Extend permission in principle to include major developments (up to 150 houses).
A PIP application only requires the applicant to submit a location plan and state the maximum or minimum number of houses.
Normal outline permissions require detailed evidence of the environment and transport, but the white paper makes clear these should only be considered at a technical detail stage when it will be too late to challenge the principle of development. Whatever evidence is required, it will clearly be less currently for outline permission, otherwise, what would be the point of changing it. Even if nothing else is implemented this would be disastrous and undermine the principle that anything can be a material consideration and, ultimately it is up to the courts to decide what is.
Planning reforms ; supporting the high street and increasing the delivery of new homes.
Permitted development rights mean that planning permission isn’t required. Two major rights have been granted by Boris Johnson’s government.
The right to change from commercial, business and service use to residential.
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI says it cannot fathom why the government believed the policy was in any way a good idea. The RPTI chief executive Vicotria Mills.says ‘I fear these new regulations will be a golden gift for unscrupulous landlords. Hugh Ellis, director of policy at the Town and Country Planning Association syas the policy ‘risks being a disaster for our high streets, local democracy and the future of decent housing’
Right to build upward extensions without planning permission.
The Planning Officers Society says ‘addition height in this way needs to be given very careful consideration…Making it PD says that Parliament considers it acceptable in principle in all cases, with is patently not going to be the case.
Government has passed these PDR changes despite strong objections from the planning bodies, without any debate in parliament.
Planning for the future
1. Replace the Local Plan with a Zonal Plan.
Zones would be set for different classes of housing development (including growth areas and zones for ‘gentle densification’. Every site in the zone would have ‘permission in principle’. The Councils will have 2.5 years to prepare plans with a 10-year housing supply (or face penelties) and would be ‘assisted’ by planning inspectors to make sure they do. Discretionary policies (such as needing to fit in with the form and character of a settlement) would not be allowed. There would be a statutory sustainability test, but the white paper says nothing about what this will be. Even then, if the Council fails a housing delivery test, or fails to get 10 years-worth of housing in their plans, they would need consider sites outside the zones they set. The time for deciding applications will be cut down, and if they aren’t decided in time they could be approved automatically, without appeal. Councils would need to revisit the plan every 5 years.
The white paper offers no insight into how the zones should be set up, or how to prevent overdevelopment if all the sites in a zone get developed. Councils would be under severe pressure to accept any sites coming forwards to get 10 years worth of housing in them, without the need (or the time) to assess them with any rigour (as these will be PIPs). Anyone wanting to object to the zones will have to convince the planning department to amend them by responding to the consultation (good look with that) and have to do it all over again in 5 years when the plan is reviewed (or sooner if the council falls behind on its delivery or doesn’t manage to get 10 years in its plan). People can already comment on their local plan, but the normal (limited) opportunities to oppose development on specific sites – convincing the planning committee and then the inspector in person at a hearing (using expert evidence if you can get it) will be taken away. If a site has an inspectors decision against it that can’t be overcome, that would normally kill the prospect of development for a long time, but under the new rules developers will just keep putting sites forwards until councils eventually accept them. Once they’re in the plan, that’s it.
2. Design and layout of new developments would be subject to local and national design guidelines and standards.
Developments meeting minimum standards could be approved automatically by computers analysing machine readable plans. The decisions should are best left to ‘professional planners’ (though the white papers says we have lost trust in them). If the planning committee can’t be abolished, to ensure ‘proper consideration’ of the application, the fee should be refunded if a planning inspector overturns a refusal on appeal (presumably risking bankruptcy for the Council, as they will be funded by the application fees).
3. Developer contributions
Construction Industry Levies (CIL) and S106 contributions would be replaced by a flat rate tax on development, only 25% to be spent locally. The rest could be used for anything, including to reduce council tax. The tax would aim to capture more of the uplift in land value.
The cost to developers would not longer be tied to how difficult their sites would be to service. This seems like an invitation to build unsustainable developments far away from local services.
Quote
Oscar Wilde
“One is not always happy when one is good; but one is always good when one is happy”
ACTIVITIES
Bringing Change
HEALTH CLINIC
At Campaign for Planning Reform (CPR), we are dedicated to stepping up our efforts in addressing this issue. Health Clinic is by no means an easy feat, but through cooperation and community empowerment we believe we can facilitate progress in this area. We are always striving to make a difference, and invite you to learn more and lend your support.
HOMELESS OUTREACH
With this initiative, our goal is to promote great opportunities for those in need. With access to the right resources, people can become empowered by their own abilities and gain the confidence to fulfill their potential. Learn more about our work by getting in touch with our team today.
FOOD DONATION DROP-OFF
With our organization’s mission always in mind, we strive to find new strategies for dealing with this challenge. Food Donation Drop-Off is something that we take very seriously, and our team is working each and every day to make a positive impact. Contact us to learn more about our commitment to this cause.