Klingons on the starboard bow – The Chancellor strikes back

(or Town Planning in the Chancellor’s Budget Speech)

Intro

You don’t normally look at The Budget expecting news of reforms to the planning system, but that’s all changed with George Osborne’s speech in March. Following his boss’ lead (“Planning Officials are Enemies of Enterprise”) the Chancellor has had a crack at reforming the planning system, picking up from where David Cameron and Eric Pickles left off. All exciting stuff, especially for those of us who thought the Enemies of Enterprise were Klingons and Romulans.

Localism (Part II)

• You will recall from the last newsletter that the Localism Bill is to introduce the concept of neighbourhood plans, to be drawn up by communities of as few as three people on sites which they define with the help of planning officers. Now that role and privilege has been extended to businesses, enabling them to join in and to bring forward neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders.
• In giving priority to growth, planning authorities are now expected to put jobs and growth towards the top of the list of material considerations.
• All planning decisions, applications and an appeal should be determined within 12 months.
• 21 enterprise zones with “radically reduced” planning restrictions have been unveiled.
• The possibility that commercial buildings might be converted for residential use, without the need for permission or with reduced levels of control, is to be given further consideration.
• Pilot schemes in which public land with planning permission is sold by auction to developers are to be brought forward, but probably not for a t least a year.

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

Not to be outdone by DC, GO and EP, the Minister of State for Decentralisation, Greg Clark, has reaffirmed the government’s commitment to a “strong presumption in favour of sustainable development”. LPAs, he said, should “plan positively for new development, deal promptly and favourably with applications that comply with up-to-date plans and national policies and approve applications where plans are absent, out-of-date, silent or indeterminate.” They should also give appropriate weight to the need to support economic recovery, treat applications favourably when they secure sustainable growth, consistent with PPS4 and modify old s106 agreements where the obligations now make development unviable.

CIL Update

No doubt persuaded by the Coalition’s decision that the Community Infrastructure Levy is after all a good thing, 68% of LPAs now intend to introduce the charge. Only a few have made any progress in even preparing a charging schedule, with the April 2014 not so far away. After that date pooled contributions cannot be taken from more than five developments and funds cannot be secured by s106 when they could and should be covered by CIL, so there will be a late rush to get the charges fixed and more pressure on the Planning Inspectorate, which seems the likely candidate for the role of independent examiner.

Comments

There appears to be a conflict brewing, not least within the government itself, between the “power to the people” lobby and the “jobs and growth” movement. It is to be hoped that the two are not mutually exclusive, but the idea of Big Bucks Ltd producing a neighbourhood plan is no less scary a concept than that of the plan coming from a level somewhere below parish council. There does seem to be a hint in the budget speech of a government making things up as they go along, having perhaps been lobbied by a business sector seeing itself left out of the Localism agenda.

There are few LPAs for whom jobs and growth do not figure high on the list of material considerations, but it must be a good thing to have this reaffirmed. Jobs and growth might, however, be at odds with the idea that commercial buildings should be converted to residential use, especially as most commercial environments are what they are because they are unsuitable for housing. A consultation paper has just been launched on removing the need for planning permission for such changes with comments to be made by 30 June 2011 – we will see how much the headline intention gets watered down through the process

Enterprise zones are, of course, nothing new and were not a great success last time around, so some new ideas will be needed here.

Twelve months still seems a long time to go through the planning process, but, if it puts pressure on the Inspectorate to move things along at a reasonable speed at their end, then it must be a good thing. Presumably, the twelve months won’t include the six months allowed in which to lodge an appeal.

Council land auctions, intended to allow Councils to keep most of the rise in land values following a permission which the Council has given itself, all sounds a bit grubby, especially to land owners who also give the rise in land values to the Council in s106 contributions. This is a case of watch this space, but don’t hold your breath.

The strong presumption in favour of sustainable development, even if it’s not supported by out-of-date policies, can only be a positive move, a card to be played early on in planning statements, especially in areas with no Core Strategy. As it is now seven years since the LDF system was introduced and four since policies in old local plans were “saved”, applicants with sustainable development schemes that satisfy PPS4 should be putting pressure on LPAs to accept that this is all they have to do to earn a favourable decision.

CIL looks to be here to stay, but for now it’s business as usual as LPAs seek developer contributions at every opportunity.

Conclusions

The planning system which created the enemies of enterprise is, according to George Osborne, “a chronic obstacle to growth”, so we can conclude that the Klingons have a “force-field “. The government’s “photon torpedoes” have been launched and we await impact …………….. in a community not so far, far away.