The planning white paper: is it any good?

The planning white paper was issued in May amid a flurry of publicity about two proposals: the Independent Planning Commission for large strategic projects and the freeing from planning approval of minor development such as house extensions. This overview highlights some of the changes identified in the white paper and considers their likely impact.

In general, we at Barton Willmore welcome the overall tone of the white paper, which is aimed at increasing the speed, performance and flexibility of the planning system, while streamlining public engagement to make it more effective.

National policy statements and the Independent Planning Commission

The paper proposes to issue national policy statements (NPS) for nationally significant infrastructure and to create an Independent Planning Commission to streamline the planning process for some of the most complex infrastructure projects and ensure they are delivered in support of the creation of sustainable communities.

We would welcome decisions on priorities and choices between competing technologies made at a national level rather than being made on an individual project basis. It would give greater certainty to communities, industry and investors. But the scope for debate around whether adverse local consequences outweigh the benefits, including the national benefits identified in the NPSs, is huge and potentially no less complex than the current system.

Strong and clear statements of national benefit are essential if increased efficiency is to be delivered. NPSs will have to:

• be flexible to respond to changing circumstances
• be location specific
• include criteria-based provision for projects and technologies not identified at the time of adoption.

Planning 10-25 years ahead is essential but in reality some statements would take years to emerge and be adopted.

Climate change

The white paper continues the clear message to industry and decision-makers on the importance of the carbon challenge. There is still much more to be done to form a framework to deliver the government’s ambitions and this is one of the most exciting challenges facing all of us today.

Sustainable economic development

We welcome the increased focus on sustainable economic growth and consider it timely for the government to produce new guidance, but there is little of substance in the white paper – more details are needed, and soon.

Planning must be more flexible – simply identifying sites for development does not create jobs. The planning system is too negative towards proposals for the development or redevelopment of redundant or unsuitable employment sites for other purposes while sustainable employment schemes not specifically identified in the development plan are all too often resisted. Planning must react to market signals.

The scope for debate around whether adverse local consequences outweigh the benefits is huge

Town centres

Unsurprisingly, the white paper continues to support the primacy of town centres. However, what is more surprising is its decision to replace the need and impact tests in PPS6 with a new (as yet undisclosed) test.

The white paper contends that the long established need and impact tests are a blunt instrument and have, in certain instances, inadvertently frustrated attempts to promote the health of town centres. The new test will attempt to reconcile the “town centre first” principle with the concepts of promoting competition and increasing consumer choice. Whatever form the new test takes, it is vital that sufficient guidance is given to practitioners on how to undertake the new test. This was something that was promised in PPS6 (March 2005) in terms of the current need and impact tests, but two years on has still failed to materialise.

National policy framework

Although the government’s ambition to reduce the groaning weight of guidance and policy is supported, we remain unconvinced of its ability to deliver. Perhaps some more studies will prove us wrong.

It is also somewhat disappointing that the government has not taken the opportunity to review its policy for green belts in light of the drive for a more sustainable approach to the identification of spatial strategies. Although the fundamentals of green belt policy are still sound, the detailed policy needs to be more responsive to opportunities for sustainable options to accommodate necessary and desirable growth.

Development plans

We welcome the white paper’s aim to simplify and speed up the development plan process but question whether the proposals go far enough. The government should give inspectors greater flexibility to make changes in order to make a plan sound. This could potentially not only avoid the need to withdraw what may be an unsound plan early in the process but more importantly save the public purse a great deal of money, by avoiding lengthy examination processes when a plan is likely to be found unsound without amendments.

We are also concerned at the suggestion that a local authority need not produce a site allocations development plan as part of their local development framework. Although we welcome a certain degree of flexibility for the production of these plans, particularly for larger strategic sites allocated within the regional plan (as this reduces the delay), we believe it is still necessary for smaller sites to be identified in a site allocation plan.

We agree that supplementary planning documents need not be identified in the local development scheme, but are concerned about a potential lack of consultation or assessment of soundness on the supplementary planning document itself, given the far reaching impacts of some examples we have seen.

Performance

We welcome the increased focus on delivering policy outcomes and recognition that the 13-week target for major applications can be something of a misleading measure of the time taken to deliver development. Delivering policy outcomes must include delivering housing in accordance with the annual targets set out in regional spatial strategies. The government should take a whole-life approach to the time taken to gain a planning consent that can be implemented. The 13 weeks measure is irrelevant if one or more applications has been refused or withdrawn to address minor issues before an application is eventually approved.

Although the ambition to reduce the groaning weight of guidance and policy is supported, we remain unconvinced of its ability to deliver

Proposals for planning performance agreements could deliver significant improvements in the handling of major applications, involving a cooperative business plan approach with far more sophistication than the simple 13-week target.

Permitted development

Measures to reduce the workload of local planning authorities in dealing with very minor development are welcome and a review of permitted development rights is supported. Measures to allow local sustainable power generation under permitted development are particularly important in addressing the carbon challenge.

However, the white paper seems to suggest a degree of judgement in assessing whether an individual project should be considered permitted development and it is difficult to see how this would significantly reduce the burden of minor developments.

More generous tolerances in the existing permitted development rights would be more effective. More work is needed on the fine detail of householder permitted development to reduce the burden while protecting amenity and safeguarding the character of our neighbourhoods.

Streamlining

Simplification of the application regulations would be welcome and benefit all those involved in the planning system. Similarly, clarification as to what is required to comprise a valid application is long overdue, although we would be concerned about a proliferation of local lists of requirements which the white paper seems to encourage. A consistent national approach is to be favoured.

Allowing minor amendments to be made to existing planning consents within defined parameters and procedures would be hugely beneficial, reducing wasted time and uncertainly for all. Combining planning permission and conservation area consent is an obvious simplification, but why stop there? Listed building consent should also be subsumed within planning permission – the impact on a listed building is a material consideration in determining applications for planning permission and it will rarely be beneficial to have listed building consent for a project but not planning consent, or vice versa. Creative legislation could do away with the need for a separate consent regime for listed buildings.

Appeals

We support the drive for a more proportionate approach, but are concerned about the suggestion that some appeals should be determined by the local planning authority. Planning appeals should be determined by an independent body.

Fees

Finally, the suggestion of removing the £50,000 capped fee levels will most certainly mean increased costs for development and in particular the delivery of larger mixed-use projects. Unless the removal of this cap delivers significantly quicker, positive decisions, it is unlikely to have anything but a negative effect on development rates.