Planning Quarterly Update - News Edit

Independent Review of Build Out Rates

Published at the end of June, Oliver Letwin's draft analysis and accompanying annexes look at "the significant gap between housing completions and the amount of land allocated or permissioned in areas of high housing demand".  

Although we will have to wait for the Autumn Budget to see what policy changes he ultimately recommends, the interim findings are pleasantly surprising in that they do not contain the attack on large house builders that one might have anticipated.

Instead, Mr Letwin acknowledges that land banking is not consistent with the business model of the major house builders, which depend on generating profits out of sales of housing, rather than out of the increasing value of land holdings.

House builders will also be relieved to hear that Mr Letwin's view is that it is "not sensible to attempt to solve the problem of market absorption rates by forcing the major house builders to reduce the prices at which they sell their current products". 

Instead, he suggests that to obtain more rapid building out of the largest sites, more variety is needed within those sites, including housing of varying types, designs and tenures and more distinct settings, landscapes and streetscapes.

He also notes that shifting the emphasis to small sites is not the solution and that the development of both large and small sites is needed.  Given the shift in focus in the draft NPPF towards small sites, it will be interesting to see if the government takes note of this finding before finalising the draft.

Planning 2020 - The Raynsford Review

Following the establishment by the Town and Country Planning Association of the Raynsford Task Force in 2017, an independent review of the English planning system was conducted with interim findings published in May.

With its stated intention being to "promote debate about the future of the planning system in England", the report offers a series of provisional propositions intended to help inform the recommendations of the final report.

It opens with a damning statement that the planning system has been in "an almost constant state of flux over the past decade and a half…" and notes that "the last thing that is needed is more short-term tinkering with the nuts and bolts" rather "a deep and hard look at the fundamentals" is required.

It offers nine propositions, including: planning with a purpose; a new covenant for community participation; a new commitment to meeting people's basic needs; simplified planning law and; a fairer way to share land values.

Again, whilst we will have to wait until the Autumn for the final report, it is encouraging to note that the Task Force is considering solutions from the approach of what is logical against what may be politically feasible, but however hard we try, it is hard to shake the feeling that these are yet more words that have a good prospect of leading nowhere.

Capital Gains: A Better Land Assembly Model for London

In the same week that we saw the release of the Raynsford Review, Sadiq Khan followed suit with the GLA-commissioned report Capital Gains: A Better Land Assembly Model for London, so entitled because "it deals with the particular challenges facing the nation's capital, and because it is aimed at harnessing land values for the city's benefit".

The report's authors propose that this better model will be brought about by the implementation of a Land Assembly Action List, a ten point list with measures which inlcude: allowing confirmation of CPOs ahead of planning consent; allowing Mayoral confirmation of London local authority CPOs; 'use it or lose it' powers for CPO land and; statutory land pooling.

Mr Khan has said that he will implement the recommendations of the report as far as his current powers and resources allow, so given that the majority of the proposals will require the making of not insignificant and somewhat controversial changes to legislation before the 'better model for land assembly' becomes more than wishful thinking, we are no doubt a long way off seeing most if not all of the suggestions taking effect.

Mayor's Housing Strategy

Also from City Hall, we've seen the launch of the final version of the Mayor's housing strategy, following the circulation of a draft last Autumn.  

It sets out five priorities, with its central priority being to build "many more homes for Londoners - particularly genuinely affordable homes".

Following on from the Mayor’s good practice guide to estate regeneration, published in February, the strategy also promotes the use of residents' ballots ahead of estate regeneration schemes and notes that "For large schemes where demolition is involved, he will only agree to provide funding where there has been a successful ballot of existing residents."

In line with the "Capital Gains" report, the strategy also includes a call for "a radical reform of land assembly rules", including "the reform of compulsory purchase powers, the introduction of new land assembly mechanisms and resources, and much stronger powers for City Hall over public land earmarked for new homes, particularly land owned by government".

PINS Guidance – Plans and Projects Subject to Habitats Regulation Assessment

In April, the European Court of Justice handed down its decision in People Over Wind and another v Coillte Teoranta [2018], a case which turned the screening of plans or projects for Habitats Regulation Assessment purposes on its head. 

In short, the court held that when screening a plan or project to determine whether it was necessary to carry out an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations, it was not appropriate to take account of the measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on the site in question.

Following the decision, PINS issued guidance to planning inspectors on the approach to be taken where a proposed plan or project is subject to Habitats Regulation Assessment in circumstances where the assessment relies on avoidance or reduction measures to conclude there would be no likely significant effects on European site(s). 

In short, the guidance concludes that whilst mitigation measures can be taken into account at the assessment stage, for the purposes of screening, this is no longer possible - "Competent authorities cannot take account of any integrated or additional avoidance or reduction measures when considering at the HRA screening stage whether the plan or project is likely to have an adverse effect on a European Site."

The effects of the ruling are likely to be wide-spread and we are already seeing its impacts.  For example, Waverley Borough Council has announced that it has temporarily suspended planning decisions for new residential developments in the 5 km protected zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, whilst a planning inspector examining the Central Bedfordshire Council local plan voiced concerns that the document may not be "legally compliant" in light of the ruling.  The Council has subsequently agreed to prepare an appropriate assessment.