Have your say on new national planning system
Successive governments have tinkered and chipped away at the original concepts behind the planning system, the result is a complex, increasingly permissive system tilted in favour of development where profit is the motive. The planning system doesn’t build houses, but developers do. The planning system should be there to ensure the right sort of development takes place in the right locations and should be open, democratic and transparent. New proposals are based on a three-category system to classify land: Growth, Renewal and Protection. This system is supported by three conceptual pillars – Planning for development; Planning for ‘beautiful and sustainable’ places and Planning for infrastructure and ‘connected’ places.
The proposals include:
· Simplifying the role of Local Plans so they identify land under the three categories:
Growth, areas suitable for substantial development, where outline approval for development would be automatically secured; Renewal areas suitable for some development, such as ‘gentle densification’; and Protected areas, where development is restricted.
· Development management policies to be set nationally and Local Plans will have a core set of standards and requirement for development.
· Streamlined consultation at the planning application stage
· Local Plans to be subject to a single statutory ‘sustainable development’ test, doing away with soundness, environmental and viability tests and the duty to co-operate.
· Standard digital map-based template for Local Plans
· Statutory timescales for LPAs and Planning Inspectorate of 30 months for Local Plans, sanctions for failure.
· Firm deadlines for decision making
· Digital first approach to encourage engagement by all, greater use of standard data sets
· Focus on design and sustainability through NPPF to combat climate change
· Ask for ‘beauty’ with greater focus on ‘place-making’
· Local design guidance and codes, each LPA to have a Chief Officer for design and place-making
· CIL to be reformed as a nationally set value-based flat rate charge – the Infrastructure Levy
· Greater powers to LPAs to determine how infrastructure levy is used
· A nationally determined binding housing requirement that LPAs have to deliver through their Local Plans
There are 25 questions in the consultation:
1. What three words do you associate most with the planning system in England?
2. Do you get involved with planning decisions in your local area? If no, why not?
3. Our proposals will make it much easier to access plans and contribute your views to planning decisions. How would you like to find out about plans and planning proposals in the future?
4. What are your top three priorities for planning in your local area?
5. Do you agree that Local Plans should be simplified in line with our proposals?
6. Do you agree with our proposals for streamlining the development management content of Local Plans, and setting out general development management policies nationally?
7. Do you agree with our proposals to replace existing legal and policy tests for Local Plans with a consolidated test of ‘sustainable development’, which would include consideration of environmental impact? How could strategic, cross-boundary issues be best planned for in the absence of a formal Duty to Cooperate?
8. (a) Do you agree that a standard method for establishing housing requirements (that takes into account constraints) should be introduced?
(b). Do you agree that affordability and the extent of existing urban areas are appropriate indicators of the quantity of development to be accommodated?
9. (a). Do you agree that there should be automatic outline permission for areas for substantial development (Growth areas) with faster routes for detailed consent?
(b). Do you agree with our proposals above for the consent arrangements for Renewal and Protected areas?
(c). Do you think there is a case for allowing new settlements to be brought forward under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime?
10. Do you agree with our proposals to make decision-making faster and more certain?
11. Do you agree with our proposals for accessible, web-based Local Plans?
12. Do you agree with our proposals for a 30-month statutory timescale for the production of Local Plans?
13. (a) Do you agree that Neighbourhood Plans should be retained in the reformed planning system?
(b). How can the neighbourhood planning process be developed to meet our objectives, such as in the use of digital tools and reflecting community preferences about design?
14. Do you agree there should be a stronger emphasis on the build out of developments? And if so, what further measures would you support?
15. What do you think about the design of new development that has happened recently in your area?
16. Sustainability is at the heart of our proposals. What is your priority for sustainability in your area?
17. Do you agree with our proposals for improving the production and use of design guides and codes?
18. Do you agree that we should establish a new body to support design coding and building better places, and that each authority should have a chief officer for design and place-making?
19. Do you agree with our proposal to consider how design might be given greater emphasis in the strategic objectives for Homes England?
20. Do you agree with our proposals for implementing a fast-track for ‘beauty’?
21. When new development happens in your area, what is your priority for what comes with it?
22. (a) Should the Government replace the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 planning obligations with a new consolidated Infrastructure Levy, which is charged as a fixed proportion of development value above a set threshold?
(b) Should the Infrastructure Levy rates be set nationally at a single rate, set nationally at an area-specific rate, or set locally?
(c) Should the Infrastructure Levy aim to capture the same amount of value overall, or more value, to support greater investment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities?
(d) Should we allow local authorities to borrow against the Infrastructure Levy, to support infrastructure delivery in their area?
23. Do you agree that the scope of the reformed Infrastructure Levy should capture changes of use through permitted development rights
24. (a). Do you agree that we should aim to secure at least the same amount of affordable housing under the Infrastructure Levy, and as much on-site affordable provision, as at present?
(b). Should affordable housing be secured as in-kind payment towards the Infrastructure Levy, or as a ‘right to purchase’ at discounted rates for local authorities?
(c). If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, should we mitigate against local authority overpayment risk?
(d). If an in-kind delivery approach is taken, are there additional steps that would need to be taken to support affordable housing quality?
25. Should local authorities have fewer restrictions over how they spend the Infrastructure Levy?
(a) If yes, should an affordable housing ‘ring-fence’ be developed?
You can respond by going to the MHCLG website by October 29th:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-thefuture Alternatively you can email your response to the consultation to planningforthefuture@communities.gov.uk