The Conservative Government is proposing sweeping and highly controversial changes to the planning system.

These include undermining democratic scrutiny of planning applications, significant changes to how local plans are developed, abolition of locally-agreed contributions from developers, significant threats to the supply of affordable homes, and the recalculation of how many houses must be built in local authority areas.

The District Labour Group, working with knowledgeable local members, are responding forcefully to these proposals working closely with our local MP, Matt Western. The first response is to proposed changes to the calculation of housing supply, extensions to permission in principle decisions, and changes to the provision of affordable homes.

This link will take you to the government proposals and our response is below. The deadline for this response is Tuesday 29 September. Please submit your own response based on ours.

We will also be responding separately to the White Paper Planning for the Future in October. Look out for information about that and also please consider responding to that.

Jonathan Nicholls, Leader, Warwick District Council Labour Group

Responses to Consultation Questions

 

Q1: Do you agree that planning practice guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is whichever is the higher of the level of 0.5% of housing stock in each local authority area OR the latest household projections averaged over a 10-year period?

 

No

For two reasons:

1.  The algorithm is based not on a new assessment of need but the government’s commitment to build 300k homes a year (para. 17). Why does the method not interrogate the starting point and the evidence for that first? Why does this figure represent double the projections given by the ONS (table 406) which indicates a 150k pa household growth over the next 20 years in England. In Warwick Dkstrict it projects 500pa, but we understand the new methodology will require almost 1000 units pa (before any Coventry overspill which has also increased).. These huge disparities need to be carefully analysed and justified.

 

1. The government should therefore submit its revised algorithm and the principles in it to the ONS and/or Royal Statistical Society for review to ensure that it is soundly based. It will have at least a 100 year impact on communities and the environment and needs to be free of political interference. Neither Savills or Lichfields (para. 15) is independent.

 

Q2: In the stock element of the baseline, do you agree that 0.5% of existing stock for the standard method is appropriate? If not, please explain why.

 

No.

See answers to Q1. Furthermore the application of a flat % of existing housing stock as a baseline is too simplistic. Some allowance must be made for Districts with more or less suitable adjacent/brownfield land for development eg. those surrounded or not surrounded by Green Belt.

 

Q3: Do you agree that using the workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio from the most recent year for which data is available to adjust the standard method’s baseline is appropriate? If not, please explain why.

 

No.

1. It is too simplistic to assume that supply and demand are the only factors in house prices. The quality of homes, the overall environment, factors like good schools, the percentage of the rental market, may all affect house prices in a particular area. It may be laudable to want to even up house prices between regions and localities but there are more factors at work than the local affordability ratio of comparing median house prices to median earnings. It will be this which leads to increases projected for this (Warwick) district. Para 42 shows the impact on the number of boroughs with changes >25%

2.The main driving force for the size and mix of local development should be local needs, There must be a mechanism for reflecting this in the affordability assessment and ensuring it is then embedded in the planned numbers and mix. Social housing demand and local need will not otherwise be properly picked up. The result of the approach being proposed is likely to be further distortion of development towards profitable higher priced development and inadequate supply of truly affordable housing. The environmental and social impacts will worsen – in particular adding to undesirable regional commuting pressures (low-paid workers into high housing price areas and vice versa), reduced community cohesion and wasted costs.

 

Q4: Do you agree that incorporating an adjustment for the change of affordability over 10 years is a positive way to look at whether affordability has improved? If not, please explain why.

No

See answers to Q3. The overall principle is correct but the devil is in the detail.  Has only private purchase become more or less affordable or is the affordability and availability of rented accommodation for the least well-off, employed, disabled, retired also captured in the proposed measure? If not, the conclusions and decisions taken on the basis of the analysis are likely not to reflect accurately real local needs (both over and under)

 

Q5: Do you agree that affordability is given an appropriate weighting within the standard method? If not, please explain why.

It is hard to understand what the weighting is from the information supplied – see answers to Q1 & Q4 – independent assessment of methodology required.It looks inadequate on the face of it.

 

Do you agree that authorities should be planning having regard to their revised standard method need figure, from the publication date of the revised guidance, with the exception of:

Q6: Authorities which are already at the second stage of the strategic plan consultation process (Regulation 19), which should be given 6 months to submit their plan to the Planning Inspectorate for examination?

??

Q7: Authorities close to publishing their second stage consultation (Regulation 19), which should be given 3 months from the publication date of the revised guidance to publish their Regulation 19 plan, and a further 6 months to submit their plan to the Planning Inspectorate?

??

If not, please explain why. Are there particular circumstances which need to be catered for?

Both transition periods suggested seem too short and would not allow for proper consideration of where and how to meet any new requirements. This is particularly pertinent now in the volatile planning environment caused by Covid and the changing pattern of activities in towns and urban areas. If more houses are to be built, focus should be on brownfield and animating urban centres where significant shifts of retail and office needs are taking place.

 

Q8: The Government is proposing policy compliant planning applications will deliver a minimum of 25% of onsite affordable housing as First Homes, and a minimum of 25% of offsite contributions towards First Homes where appropriate. Which do you think is the most appropriate option for the remaining 75% of affordable housing secured through developer contributions? Please provide reasons and / or evidence for your views (if possible):

1. i) Prioritising the replacement of affordable home ownership tenures and delivering rental tenures in the ratio set out in the local plan policy.
2. ii) Negotiation between a local authority and developer.

iii) Other (please specify)

Other

Priority for the 75% should be housing at social rents delivered either through housing associations or the local Council with or without funding partners.. Shared ownership and so-called ‘affordable’ rent tenures should be the categories reduced or eliminated.

The new requirement for First Homes should not reduce the % in the Plan for social housing, nor should the First Homes ‘discount’ indirectly increase the rental level of social housing.

 

 

With regards to current exemptions from delivery of affordable home ownership products:

Q9: Should the existing exemptions from the requirement for affordable home ownership products (e.g. for build to rent) also apply to apply to this First Homes requirement?

Yes- if the Build to Rent schemes are at or contain a Plan-compliant proportion of houses at social rents.

 

Q10: Are any existing exemptions not required? If not, please set out which exemptions and why.

One exemption which should be considered for removal or curtailment is Permitted development rights. There is strong evidence that this is leading to many poor quality conversions/developments. To maintain standards of space, light, insulation etc such work should be brought back under planning control.

Another is in the use of viability criteria. In the short-term the government should adopt the policy that all adjustments needed on viability grounds should, in the first instance, be made to the land purchase price down to current use value plus a reasonable % planning gain (?10-20%), backed up by use of CPO powers as necessary, before any reductions in the delivery of low-cost and social housing are considered.

 

Q11: Are any other exemptions needed? If so, please provide reasons and /or evidence for your views.

None identified at this time.

 

Q12: Do you agree with the proposed approach to transitional arrangements set out above?

Yes

 

Q13: Do you agree with the proposed approach to different levels of discount

No – more discount is likely to be at the expense of social housing volumes and rental levels. such variances are also likely to discriminate between residents of adjacent LPA’s and lead to distortions in housing supply and commuting behaviour. See answers to Q3 above.

Crucially, there MUST be a clawback or capping mechanism for all resales of First Homes to recapture the social discount for reinvestment and not see it taken as windfall gains by lucky first time buyers.

 

 

Q14: Do you agree with the approach of allowing a small proportion of market housing on First Homes exception sites, in order to ensure site viability?

No 

It remains important to use this mechanism to achieve more low-cost rental units, preferably at social rents. This is where the national and local shortfalls are so critical.

Q15: Do you agree with the removal of the site size threshold set out in the National Planning Policy Framework?

No

The NPPF rationale is correct and considerably more evidence-based than this proposal.

Q16: Do you agree that the First Homes exception sites policy should not apply in designated rural areas?

Yes

 

 

For each of these questions, please provide reasons and / or evidence for your views (if possible):

Q17: Do you agree with the proposed approach to raise the small sites threshold for a time-limited period? (see question 18 for comments on level of threshold)

No

Unlikely to have significant impact overall but will have negative impact on delivery of social/low-cost rental housing which is where the national and local shortfalls are so critical. But agree any such change if adopted should be firmly time-limited by statute not administrative decision..

 

Q18: What is the appropriate level of small sites threshold? i) Up to 40 homes ii) Up to 50 homes iii) Other (please specify)

iii)

10 as now

NPPF reasoning, questionable overall housing methodology (answers to Questions 1,2 & 3) and proper focus needed on dire shortage of low-cost rental housing overall and especially in high land-cost urban areas.

 

Q19: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the site size threshold?

No

For the reasons given in Q17 &18

 

Q20: Do you agree with linking the time-limited period to economic recovery and raising the threshold for an initial period of 18 months?

No

For the reasons given in answers to Q17 & 18.

 Especially opposed to a discretionary rather than statutory fixed period, given the likely cumulative negative impact on delivery of low-cost housing and the difficulty of controlling abuse of the concession by larger developers.

SME builders are likely to be weakened by a prolonged economic downturn. Why is there therefore no proposal in these short-term changes of greater empowerment for Local Authorities to use their funds, borrowing powers and CPO’s to invest directly and with partners, in social housing to fill the yawning and growing gap in supply of this type of tenure – and force land-bankers to disgorge their hoards, both those with and without planning permissions ?

 

Q21: Do you agree with the proposed approach to minimising threshold effects?

No

This abuse will be very difficult to identify or to counter. Another strong reason why the proposal should not go forward.

 

Q22: Do you agree with the Government’s proposed approach to setting thresholds in rural areas?

Yes.

But their greater success in securing low-cost housing simply makes the case for local authorities being more forceful in meeting low-cost rental needs in urban areas and not simply relying on SME’s and market forces to deliver in a less regulated environment.

 

Q23: Are there any other ways in which the Government can support SME builders to deliver new homes during the economic recovery period?

Yes.

Encourage local authorities to form more strategic partnerships with local SME’s as they often do with Housing Associations, Pension Funds etc  to deliver new social housing.

 

Q24: Do you agree that the new Permission in Principle should remove the restriction on major development?

No

Cannot see much difference from the current system unless it is to weaken the technical assessments and conditions attached to major developments which would be highly undesirable as they are often not strong enough at present.

 

Q25: Should the new Permission in Principle for major development set any limit on the amount of commercial development (providing housing still occupies the majority of the floorspace of the overall scheme)? Please provide any comments in support of your view

Yes

There needs to be a clear framework and limit to assist LPA’s, especially the weaker ones dealing with a well-advised developer, to agree a balanced development, not just one which barely qualifies as housing-led. Capped proportions should continue – possibly also with minima if larger developments do go ahead to ensure new developments include adequate commercial & community facilities.

 

Q26: Do you agree with our proposal that information requirements for Permission in Principle by application for major development should broadly remain unchanged? If you disagree, what changes would you suggest and why?

No

See earlier answers

 

 

 

Q27: Should there be an additional height parameter for Permission in Principle? Please provide comments in support of your views.

Yes

If the proposal goes ahead.

 

Q28: Do you agree that publicity arrangements for Permission in Principle by application should be extended for large developments? If so, should local planning authorities be:

1. i) required to publish a notice in a local newspaper?
2. ii) subject to a general requirement to publicise the application or

iii) both?

1. iv) disagree

If you disagree, please state your reasons.

iii)

Also use of social and other electronic media

 

Q29: Do you agree with our proposal for a banded fee structure based on a flat fee per hectarage, with a maximum fee cap?

Not sure

How does that compare with normal planning fees for similar sized applications – there should be a reasonable relationship? The impact on LPA income should be carefully modelled to ensure sufficient skills and resources to fulfil their functions; if necessary through identifying alternative funding sources.

 

Q30: What level of flat fee do you consider appropriate, and why?

See answer to Q 29

 

Q31: Do you agree that any brownfield site that is granted Permission in Principle through the application process should be included in Part 2 of the Brownfield Land Register? If you disagree, please state why.

Given the information supplied in the consultation, this would seem to be an automatic process if PIP has been granted. Why has this question been posed?

 

Q32: What guidance would help support applicants and local planning authorities to make decisions about Permission in Principle? Where possible, please set out any areas of guidance you consider are currently lacking and would assist stakeholders.

Ensuring clarity is established through statute, then documented and training available to stakeholders on

1. what the democratic input (consultation process, LPA and Planning Committee) will be at the first stage of granting Permission in Principle and
2. what that input will be at the second stage and how it will be organised, to ensure proper oversight of all the subsequent decisions on so-called ‘technical’ matters which can have impacts on the wider community eg roads, cycle & pedestrian routes, parking, design, landscaping, other infrastructure (schools, community centres, parks, doctor surgeries etc)

 

 

Q33: What costs and benefits do you envisage the proposed scheme would cause? Where you have identified drawbacks, how might these be overcome?

What is the evidence that the current systems and requirements hold back land development? Where is the evidence for this assertion and what weight has been given to it against contrary evidence?

How does the evidence and the proposals deal with the huge delays through land-banking and post-permission deferrals which limit rates of housebuilding?

Do these phenomena indicate a system skewed to maximising profits rather than meeting needs?

Why do these proposed weakenings of the planning oversight system assume they are justified and unreasonably then requires objectors to find ways round their fundamental objections?

Alternative approaches have been indicated in many of the answers given above.

 

Q34: To what extent do you consider landowners and developers are likely to use the proposed measure? Please provide evidence where possible.

If it makes it easier and cheaper to get through the planning system they will use it extensively – but with no measures to discourage large-scale prior land-banking and to enforce tighter post permission development timescales, where will be the benefits to the community and the housing supply ?

 

Q35: In light of the proposals set out in this consultation, are there any direct or indirect impacts in terms of eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations on people who share characteristics protected under the Public Sector Equality Duty?
If so, please specify the proposal and explain the impact.

If there is an impact – are there any actions which the department could take to mitigate that impact?

The principal direct impact will be a failure to reduce the well-documented unequal housing opportunities in many parts of the country, as house prices and private rental levels have soared compared with most people’s wages; social housing has been lost to Right to Buy and few new units have been built to meet demand and narrow the gap. A reasonable assessment of these proposals would conclude that they are likely to worsen these inequalities overall if implemented and should therefore be reconsidered.  Within this overall picture people with protected characteristics – notably the disabled – are likely to lose disproportionately.

Alternative strategies to focus policy directly on these inequalities are given above in other answers.