Planning Changes 2020

 The Government intends to set out in policy that a minimum of 25 per cent of all affordable housing units secured through developer contributions should be First Homes. This will be a national threshold, set out in planning policy. Initially these will be secured through section 106 planning obligations but, under proposed reforms, these would subsequently be secured through the Infrastructure Levy (see Pillar Three of Planning for the Future). 

•  Pages 19-24
• Proposal 1: The role of land use plans should be simplified. We (Gov) propose that Local Plans should identify three types of land – Growth areas suitable for substantial development, Renewal areas suitable for development, and areas that are Protected.
• Proposal 2: Development management policies established at national scale and an altered role for Local Plans.
• Proposal 3: Local Plans should be subject to a single statutory “sustainable development” test, replacing the existing tests of soundness.
• Proposal 4: A standard method for establishing housing requirement figures which ensures enough land is released in the areas where affordability is worst, to stop land supply being a barrier to enough homes being built. The housing requirement would factor in land constraints and opportunities to more effectively use land, including through densification where appropriate, to ensure that the land is identified in the most appropriate areas and housing targets are met.
• Proposal 5: Areas identified as Growth areas (suitable for substantial development) would automatically be granted outline planning permission for the principle of development, while automatic approvals would also be available for pre-established development types in other areas suitable for building.
• Proposal 6: Decision-making should be faster and more certain, with firm deadlines, and make greater use of digital technology.
• Proposal 7: Local Plans should be visual and map-based, standardised, based on the latest digital technology, and supported by a new template.
• Proposal 8: Local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate will be required through legislation to meet a statutory timetable for key stages of the process, and we (Gov) will consider what sanctions there would be for those who fail to do so.
• Proposal 9: Neighbourhood Plans should be retained as an important means of community input, and we (Gov) will support communities to make better use of digital tools.
• Proposal 10: A stronger emphasis on build out through planning.
• Additional comment can be found here 

• Proposal 11: To make design expectations more visual and predictable, we (gov) will expect design guidance and codes to be prepared locally with community involvement, and ensure that codes are more binding on decisions about development.
• Proposal 12: To support the transition to a planning system which is more visual and rooted in local preferences and character, we (Gov) will set up a body to support the delivery of provably locally-popular design codes, and propose that each authority should have a chief officer for design and place-making.
• Proposal 13: To further embed national leadership on delivering better places, we (Gov) will consider how Homes England’s strategic objectives can give greater emphasis to delivering beautiful places.
• Proposal 14: We (Gov) intend to introduce a fast-track for beauty through changes to national policy and legislation, to incentivise and accelerate high quality development which reflects local character and preferences.
• Proposal 15: We (Gov) intend to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that it targets those areas where a reformed planning system can most effectively play a role in mitigating and adapting to climate change and maximising environmental benefits.
• Proposal 16: We (Gov) intend to design a quicker, simpler framework for assessing environmental impacts and enhancement opportunities, that speeds up the process while protecting and enhancing the most valuable and important habitats and species in England.
• Proposal 17: Conserving and enhancing our historic buildings and areas in the 21st century.
• Proposal 18: To complement our planning reforms, we (Gov)will facilitate ambitious improvements in the energy efficiency standards for buildings to help deliver our world-leading commitment to net-zero by 2050.
•  Additional comment can be found here  

• Proposal 19: The Community Infrastructure Levy should be reformed to be charged as a fixed proportion of the development value above a threshold, with a mandatory nationally-set rate or rates and the current system of planning obligations abolished.
• Proposal 20: The scope of the Infrastructure Levy could be extended to capture changes of use through permitted development rights.
• Proposal 21: The reformed Infrastructure Levy should deliver affordable housing provision.
• Proposal 22: More freedom could be given to local authorities over how they spend the Infrastructure Levy.
•   Additional comment can be found here.

Comment

Nowhere in the current proposals (except proposal 10 above) is there any concrete proposals to clear the backlog of one million plus  dwellings that currently have planning permission, this is the equivalent to 3 years of the Governments stated build target of 300,000 plus dwellings per year. In reality SHELTER reported recently that up to 40% of dwelling with planning permission are never built, once again showing it not permissions causing the problem. Some say it is the stringent conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authorities that cause protracted time periods for large development, but larger developers with knowledge and resources combined with modern technology the condition should be able to be predicted and designed in from the start and before permission applied for. 

Also, with the temporary measure to cut the affordable element (35% currently in Wealden) of planning applications below (40 or 50 dwellings),this would mean losing 25% 0f those that would have been First Time Homes in effect losing 3-4 dwelling per development.

Based on a 300,000-build target per year, of which 105,000 would be affordable if the WDC 35% is used (other LPA may be different). The loss in numbers of First Homes could be up to 26,000 per year over the period of the temporary measure. It just seems to be self-defeating when one of the prime objectives is to make houses more affordable.

Extending the current Permission in Principle to major development so landowners and developers now have a fast route to secure the principle of development for housing on sites without having to work up detailed plans first.

• Growth areas – land that is suitable for 'substantial development' (as defined in policy). This may include the construction of new settlements, urban extension and redevelopment projects. Sites in this zone would receive automatic, outline approval for development. The focus is on certain types of infrastructure developments (including but not limited to new homes, hospitals and schools).
  
  
• Renewal areas – land that is suitable for 'development' (with emphasis on smaller scale development in contrast to larger scale 'growth' areas). There would be a statutory presumption in favour of development in this zone if suitable for the given area (such as gentle densification, town centre development, small village expansion) with a focus largely toward urban and brownfield development.
  
  
• Protected areas – Development on 'protected areas' (those designated as a result of their particular environmental and/or cultural characteristics) will continue to be restricted, as is the case with current policy, either nationally or locally defined. Areas such as the Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Conservation Areas, Local Wildlife Sites, areas of significant flood risk and important areas of green space would continue to be subject to more stringent development controls.
• Source 

Securing the principle of development for housing on more sites.

• Pages 29-35
• As part of our plans to support economic recovery, the Government wants to make it easier for landowners and developers to have certainty that the principle of development for housing only needs to be established once in the process before developers need to get into more costly, technical matters. This is particularly important for smaller sites which have not been allocated in local plans and where there is now, due to the rapidly changing economic circumstances, a desire by landowners to release the land for housing. 
• Planning for the Future proposes that land allocated for substantive development in local plans should be automatically granted a form of permission of principle so that the principle of development is established, and subsequent consents only focus on detailed technical matters. As this new framework will take time to implement, the Government is keen to expand the current Permission in Principle framework for housing-led development as an early opportunity to move towards this new approach.

Comment

Under the Changes to the Current Planning System the government want to make it easier for land to come forward in the Growth Area Zone. In this growth area zone outline planning will be assumed unless an exceptionally good reasons for not approving can be given. It would then automatically move on to the reserved matters stage where the design and other details are finalised.

The next category is Renewal Area Zone the change in rules will make it easier to proceed with change of use from commercial to residential.

The Protected Area Zone as  the Government has stated means just that unless exceptional circumstances apply - we can only hope they keep to what they are stating in the proposals. Wealden recently passed a large development in a protected area in Crowborough and currently an application has gone in for LAND SOUTH-WEST OF GHYLL ROAD, HEATHFIELD. And because of the failed WDC Local Olan in January 2020 it remains in protected AONB.

Sadly such developments will be forced through with WDC saying the cost of a Judicial Review is a mitigating factor and the hard pressed councillors will be swayed by this argument and pass the application.