England planning news

@LichfieldsUKlichfields.uk

DisclaimerThis publication has been written in general terms and cannot be relied on to cover specific situations. We recommend that you obtain professional advice before acting or refraining from acting on any of the contents of this publication. Lichfields accepts no duty of care or liability for any loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material in this publication. Lichfields is the trading name of Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Limited. Registered in England, no.2778116. Registered office: 14 Regent’s Wharf, All Saints Street, London N1 9RL © Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 2018. All rights reserved.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

Margaret Baddeley margaret.baddeley@lichfields.uk T: 020 7837 4477

Jennie Baker jennie.baker@lichfields.uk T: 020 7837 4477

Giorgio Wetzl giorgio.wetzl@lichfields.uk T: 020 7837 4477

THE LICHFIELDS PERSPECTIVE

Of course, the bleak industrial backdrop that spawned Howard’s garden cities has long gone. But the desire for people to live somewhere they can find work, build families, get about easily, and enjoy green space has not.

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Sajid Javid, speaking at the launch of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on New Towns, 17 January 2018

CONTACT US

Headline news

Draft NPPF revisions due by end of March

The Government’s Chief Planner, Steve Quartermain, has written to all local planning authority chief planners in England to advise that a consultation on draft revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is expected to be launched just before Easter (i.e. by the end of March).

This had already been stated by Melanie Dawes (Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government [MHCLG]) on 15 January, while giving oral evidence to the House of Commons CLG Committee for the inquiry into the Department’s Annual Report and Accounts for the last financial year.

Responding to Committee chair Clive Betts’ reference to the ‘many other consultations on potential changes around planning’ (making mention of: ‘the major issue of strengthening the housing delivery test’; the ‘idea of trying to get planning permissions built out faster’; ‘first time buyer‑led developments’; and ‘the deallocation of sites from plans’) ‑ and how these would be pulled together ‘in a coherent and sensible way’ ‑ she said:

‘Our answer is that we will brigade as much as possible of this in the new NPPF, which we expect to be ready for consultation

in the next few months. I hope it will be just before Easter or thereabouts. That will include measures on which we have already consulted as individual measures – you will see them then for the final time – and some measures announced in the Budget

that have not yet been consulted on, but we will be brigading all that together. Following that final consultation, we will publish and implement the new framework in one piece.’

Reflecting proposals in last year’s Housing White Paper, the Government has also confirmed that the draft revisions to the NPPF will include detailed reference to the ‘Agent of Change’ principle, meaning that developers will be responsible for ‘identifying and solving any sound problems, if granted permission to build, and avoid music venues, community and sports clubs and even churches running into expensive issues as a result of complaints from new neighbours’. DCMS Secretary Matt Hancock said:

‘I am thrilled strengthened planning rules will ensure grassroots music venues are protected when new housing is built. These venues give emerging artists a platform to hone their craft, connect to their audience and get discovered.’

LawSecondary legislation

Community infrastructure levy amendment regulations provide indexation clarification

The draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2018 were considered by the House of Commons Legislation Committee on 24 January, a necessary step before they can be made and then come into force. In the Chief Planner’s recent letter to local planning authority chief planning officers, he advised that the amendment regulations are ‘likely’ to be made and come into force this month.

The amendment Regulations relate to Regulation 128A, which provides the transitional arrangements for s73 planning permissions

FEBRUARY 2018

The Government is trying to demonstrate that its cross-department, joined-up thinking will boost house building. But its measures will not be enough, at least according to the latest Treasury Committee report; their recommendation to Government is a simple one - councils and housing associations must also be able to build more houses.

Margaret Baddeley, Planning Director

lichfields.uk

ENGLAND PLANNING NEWSFEBRUARY 2018

2

granted where a community infrastructure levy (CIL) charging schedule is in place, but there was no CIL charging schedule in effect when the original planning permission was granted.

As reported last month, the Regulations result from a stayed London Borough (LB) of Wandsworth High Court case relating to Regulation 128A of the amended CIL Regulations 2010, and the application of indexation relating to CIL calculations undertaken using the formula in that Regulation. Housing Minister Dominic Raab said, when addressing the Committee, that the draft Regulations had been ‘widely welcomed’ (including by LB Wandsworth); they were confirmed by one Committee member as a ‘change to bring legislation into line with the original intention of the Government’.

According to the Explanatory Note, the amendment Regulations provide a ‘clarificatory amendment’:

‘Regulation 128A provides for the case where development is granted planning permission (A) before a CIL comes into force in the area and the conditions of that permission are amended by any later planning permission (B) granted under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 where B is granted after a CIL for the area comes into effect. In these cases regulation 128A provides that the development under B is liable to CIL on any additional liability it introduces to the development such as an increase in floorspace (or change of use) compared to the development under A. The amendment to regulation 128A clarifies that when calculating “Y” (the notional amount of CIL payable for development under A), the index figure (for building cost inflation) to be used is the index figure for B.’

As for further amendments to the levy, in response to a recent written question relating to CIL, the Housing Minister has said:

‘The Government have announced an ambitious package of reforms to CIL and will be consulting on these in due course’.

Local plan and neighbourhood planning changes now and in July

The Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 (Commencement No. 3) Regulations 2018 were made on 15 January 2018.

The Regulations commence certain sections of the Act on different dates, specifically: • in force from 16 January 2018: s8(1)

and s8(3) (content of development plan documents [DPDs]); s9 (power to direct preparation of joint DPDs); and s10 and Schedule 2 (county councils’ default powers in relation to DPDs)

• in force from 31 January 2018: s2 (notification of applications to neighbourhood planning bodies); s4 (modification of neighbourhood development order or plan) and Schedule 1; s5 (changes to neighbourhood areas etc.)

• in force from 31 July 2018: s6 (assistance in connection with neighbourhood planning); and s13(2) (statements of community involvement)

The secondary legislation setting out the detailed processes for implementing these provisions was reported in

Lichfields’ England Planning News last month – see here.

Planning fees increased by 20% on 17 January, plus new fees added

Also reported by Lichfields last month, planning application fees increased from 17 January, due to the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 coming into force.

In addition to the general increases, fees have been introduced for: • planning applications where they

are only required because permitted development rights (PDRs) have been removed by an Article 4 Direction or a planning condition;

• pre‑application advice from Mayoral and Urban Development Corporations;

• prior approval applications relating to

Local plan progress – 52% of LPAs do not have a post-NPPF plan

Note: Shares may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Data correct as of 31 December 2017.

Almost six years have passed since the National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) introduction of a “less complex” planning system. However, as of 31 December 2017, 52% of local planning authorities are still without a local plan tested and found sound against national policy, with the majority of those still to get to the starting blocks of a local plan examination.

An emerging spatial pattern highlights how plan-making is lagging in specific areas, including authorities surrounding Manchester, Birmingham and London, where difficult choices about the Green Belt appear to be halting progress. Each of these – along with a further cluster in Urban South Hampshire (Southampton to Portsmouth) – are having to grapple to how unmet housing needs are addressed.

47%

20%

32%

Local Plan Found Sound /Adopted Post-NPPF

Local Plan Published /Submitted

No Local Plan or Pre-NPPF Loclal Plan

Source: Planning Inspectorate, Lichfields analysis

lichfields.uk

ENGLAND PLANNING NEWSFEBRUARY 2018

3

the PDRs introduced in April 2015 and April 2017; and

• permission in principle (PIP) applications (which can be submitted from 1 June this year), and non‑ material amendments to PIPs.

In the courts

Written Ministerial Statement on neighbourhood plan weight: challenge by housing developers dismissed in High Court In Richborough Estates Ltd v Secretary of State (SoS) for HCLG, heard in the High Court, Mr Justice Dove on 12 January issued an important judgment relevant to housing applications in neighbourhood plan areas.

The Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) on neighbourhood planning issued on 12 December 2016 was subject of the claim brought by 25 housing developers for judicial review, together with the resulting amendments to the national Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) in paragraph 083 of the neighbourhood planning chapter (dated 10 August 2017).

All five grounds of the claim were rejected; the contentions made and the judge’s responses to each one were as follows:

Ground 1: in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hopkins Homes, the WMS is based on an error of law in interpreting paragraph 49 of the NPPF. It also promotes a policy inconsistent with paragraphs 14 and 49 and then has the effect of amending paragraph 49 without explicitly doing so – an irrational and unlawful approach.

Dove J saw no merit in this ground, finding that there was nothing in principle unlawful with the WMS changing policy. NPPF paragraph 49 would continue to apply as a trigger for the ‘tilted balance’ in accordance with paragraph 59 of Hopkins Homes; the effect of the WMS and NPPG would be that when assessing the tilted balance, significant weight should be given to the NDP if the three criteria contained in the WMS and NPPG were to apply – this was not an amendment to paragraphs 14 or 49.

Ground 2: reliance on 2015 and 2016 research papers was based on errors of fact and inadequate evidence. Account had been taken of irrelevant considerations, while ignoring relevant ones, as well as acting irrationally.

The judge found that there was ‘no substance’ to the arguments criticising the evidential basis for the WMS.

Ground 3: the WMS is invalid, in that it relies on the assessment of a three‑year supply of land for housing, when the basis for performing such a calculation is not clear ‑ further evidence of the defendant acting irrationally.

The judge concluded that the policy of the WMS and PPG under scrutiny is ‘quite capable of being understood and applied in practice’. He explains how:‘If the LPA cannot demonstrate a five‑year supply then paragraph 49 applies. Under the WMS alone, if the five‑year supply calculation demonstrated more than three years (but less than five years) then policies for the supply of housing were not to be deemed out‑of‑date as a consequence of the application of the WMS, if its criteria were met. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, and applying the consequential addition to the NPPG along with the WMS, if the five‑year supply calculation demonstrates a more than three but less than five‑year supply (and the other criteria apply) then paragraph 49 requires the planning balance to be struck using the tilted balance from paragraph 14, and in striking the balance significant weight is to be given to the NDP.’ (para. 46)

Ground 4: the stated intention of the NPPF is to ‘boost significantly the supply of housing’. In the light of this clear policy requirement, the WMS is irrational and arises as a ‘consequence of a failure to have regard to material considerations or the taking into account of irrelevant ones’.

Dove J said that a significant increase in the supply of homes was ‘not an objective which exists on its own and isolated from the other interests addressed by the Framework […] to be pursued at all costs and irrespective of the other objectives of the Framework’. The NPPF also has specific policies for neighbourhood planning and it as for the decision‑maker to ‘balance the interests and objectives of the policy in reaching

a view as to the appropriate decision or policy to adopt’.

Ground 5: in the light of past practice on policy for housing, there was a legitimate expectation that there would be public consultation before planning policy for housing was changed by the WMS ‑ this was breached by the failure to do so here.

The judge found that evidence did not establish that there had been an ‘unequivocal assurance on the basis of practice that a WMS in relation to national planning policy for housing would not be issued without prior consultation’ – on at least two occasions, the Communities Secretary had issued WMS affecting national planning policy for housing without consultation.It has been reported that the claimants are seeking advice on appealing part of the judgment – in relation to ground 5 ‑ in the Court of Appeal.

Decision-maker is responsible for assessment of housing needIn the Court of Appeal, in Jelson Ltd. v SoS for CLG and Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, Lindblom LJ has dismissed the housing developer’s appeal against the order of Green J in the High Court, in turn dismissing an application under s288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenging an Inspector’s decision dismissing an appeal for proposed housing on 5.6ha of land off Sherborne Road, Burbage in Leicestershire.

No new case law is established by the ruling but the transcript highlights the series of recent judgments where clear statements have been made, all to the effect that:

‘…the most basic principle in the court’s jurisdiction to review planning decisions […] is that matters of planning judgment are not for the court, but for the decision‑maker – here an inspector appointed by the SoS – and that the decision‑maker’s exercise of planning judgment will not be overturned except on clearly demonstrated public law grounds.’ (paragraph 22)

With specific reference to responsibility for the assessment of

lichfields.uk

ENGLAND PLANNING NEWSFEBRUARY 2018

4

housing need, Lindlom LJ states that it ‘lies with the decision‑maker, and is no part of the court’s role in reviewing the decision’. He adds – with references to his own previous judgments on the matter:

‘Although the decision‑maker is clearly expected to establish, at least to a reasonable level of accuracy and reliability, a level of housing need that represents the ‘full, objectively assessed needs’ as a basis for determining whether a five‑year supply exists, this is not an ‘exact science’ (the expression used in paragraph 2a‑014‑20140306 of the PPG). It is an evaluation that involves the decision‑maker’s exercise of planning judgment on the available material, which may not be perfect or complete (see the judgment of Lang J. in Shropshire Council v SoS CLG, paragraph 27). The scope for a reasonable and lawful planning judgment here is broad (see the judgment of Hickinbottom J. in Stratford‑on‑Avon DC v SoS CLG, at paragraph 43). Often there may be no single correct figure representing the ‘full, objectively assessed needs’ for housing in the relevant area. More than one figure may be reasonable to use. It may well be sensible to adopt a range, rather than trying to identify a single figure. Unless relevant policy in the NPPF or guidance in the PPG has plainly been misunderstood or misapplied, the crucial question will always be whether planning judgment has been exercised lawfully, on the relevant material, in assessing housing need in the relevant area (see paragraphs 32 to 38 of my judgment in Oadby and Wigston BC). A legalistic approach is more likely to obscure the answer to this question than reveal it (see paragraph 50 of my judgment in Barwood v East Staffordshire BC).’

Draft legislation

Planning (Agent of Change) Bill 2017-19

The Planning (Agent of Change) Bill was introduced and had its First Reading on 10 January 2018. It is a Private Member’s Bill, introduced under the 10 minute rule in the House of Commons; while only a minority of such Bills become law, they create publicity around an issue and can thereby affect legislation indirectly.

Here, it can be assumed that the Bill relates to the above referred‑to announcement on a proposed revision to the NPPF to include detailed reference to the ‘Agent of Change’ principle (where the party introducing a new land use is responsible for managing the impact of that change).

The Bill is currently being prepared for publication; according to Labour MP John Spellar, it requires specified planning controls in relation to developments likely to be affected by existing noise sources. It is apparently designed in particular ‘to protect existing music venues from closure or crippling cost arising from the development of new residential properties in their vicinity, especially over questions of noise’.

The Bill’s Second Reading is due to take place on 16 March.

New consultation on draft regulations for pre-commencement conditions

A four week consultation regarding the draft Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 is in progress and will conclude on 27 February.

The draft Regulations largely reflect the ‘initial draft Regulations’ on pre-commencement conditions that were annexed to ‘The Neighbourhood Planning Bill: Further information on how the Government intends to exercise the Bill’s delegated powers’ (published in 2016), and accordingly are broadly as anticipated by the development sector (see our May 2017 blog).

In essence, the draft Regulations mean that the decision-maker will have to give notice of their intention to attach a pre-commencement condition to a planning permission (including a s73 planning permission, an appeal decision, and an appeal against an enforcement notice), and seek the applicant’s agreement. The notice must include the proposed pre-commencement condition, the reason(s) for the condition and reason(s) why it must be a pre-commencement condition. The applicant will have ten days to respond to the notice, after which time a determination may be made and the pre-commencement condition attached if planning permission is granted. A decision may be made earlier, if the applicant responds (agreeing,

disagreeing or suggesting amendments to the proposed pre-commencement condition), within the ten day notice period.

The ‘initial draft Regulations’, which related to the then Neighbourhood Planning Bill’s clause 12 proposing restrictions on powers to impose planning conditions in England generally (see the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, s14), included draft Regulations regarding limitations on the use of planning conditions (relating to s14 (1-3) as enacted). The new draft Regulations relate only to pre-commencement conditions however, and there is no indication that such limitations on the use of conditions in law, which reflect case law and the ‘six tests’ national policy (NPPF para 206) in any event, will be subject of the necessary secondary legislation to bring them into force.

PolicyNew policy and guidance

25 Year Plan to improve environment

On 11 January, the Government launched its 25‑year environment plan, ‘A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment’. The Plan now sits alongside the Government’s Industrial Strategy and its Clean Growth Strategy; the intention is that it will be updated at least every five years, although in the first five, it may be updated ‘to capitalise on the opportunities of leaving the EU’.

Providing an overview on 17 January, and giving some background, the House of Commons Library has published a briefing paper that looks at the Plan; it summarises both key policy areas and stakeholders’ ‘mixed’ reactions on publication.

In Prime Minister Theresa May’s launch speech for the new Plan, she referred to house building and ‘protecting and enhancing our natural environment for the next generation’, both in the context of ‘making good on the promise that each new generation should be able to build a better future’ and as ‘a fundamental Conservative principle’.

The Plan itself makes reference to how Government will embed an

lichfields.uk

ENGLAND PLANNING NEWSFEBRUARY 2018

5

‘environmental net gain’ principle for development (including housing and infrastructure); there will be scope for development to ‘deliver environmental improvements locally and nationally’, to ‘enable housing development without increasing overall burdens on developers’. It is not yet at all clear how the principle will work in practice; it may become clearer when ‘environmental principles’ are consulted on ‘early in 2018’.

The Plan does at least refer to how the Government will explore strengthening the requirement for local planning authorities (LPAs) that the planning system should provide biodiversity net gains ‘where possible’, and how it will consult on making this mandatory. In short, expanding the net gain approach should reduce costs to developers.

‘Net gain approaches’ are therefore proposed to be expanded e.g. to flood protection and although they will still ‘sit alongside existing regulations that protect our most threatened or valuable habitats and species’, they will enable LPAs to ‘target environmental enhancements that are needed most in their areas and give flexibility to developers providing them’.

Otherwise, the Plan repeats how the Government wants to ‘establish strategic, flexible and locally tailored approaches that recognise the relationship between the quality of the environment and development’. All this in turn will enable Government to ‘achieve measurable improvements for the environment […] while ensuring economic growth and reducing costs, complexity and delay for developers’.

Specifically on housing and planning, the Plan refers to how ‘environmental protections already enshrined in national planning policy will be maintained and strengthened’:•• ‘new development will happen in the

right places […]•• High environmental standards for all

new builds […]•• Enhancement of the Green Belt to

make this land ‘breathing space’ for our urban populations to enjoy, and our diverse wildlife to flourish, while delivering the homes this country needs.’

One specified Government action is that ‘through ongoing MHCLG‑led

reforms of developer contributions’, using tariffs to steer development towards the least environmentally damaging areas and to secure investment in natural capital’ will be explored. Another is for promoting sustainable drainage systems (SuDS); the PPG will be amended to clarify requirements and relate them to guidance for biodiversity and water quality. Changing the NPPF to encourage SuDS will only be ‘in the longer term’.Lastly, it is confirmed in the Plan that a draft National Policy Statement on water resources will be consulted on this year, the intention being that it will ‘streamline the planning process for new large infrastructure schemes, leading to net environmental benefits, as set out in the Industrial Strategy’. A clean air strategy will be published this year too.

Up to date guidance on setting of heritage assets now availableHistoric England has updated its guidance on the setting of heritage assets; it replaces ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 – 1st edition’ (2015) and ‘Seeing the History in the View: A Method for assessing Heritage Significance within Views’ (English Heritage, 2011).

The guidance begins with general advice on understanding setting and how it may contribute to the significance of heritage assets, before providing advice on how views play a part in setting. It then goes on to suggest a staged approach to taking decisions on the level of the contribution which setting and related views make to the significance of heritage assets.

Historic parks and gardens: landscapes of remembrance

On 15 January, Historic England published a series of four Register of Parks and Gardens Selection Guides.

Each one of the guides – for landscapes of remembrance, rural landscapes, institutional landscapes, and urban landscapes ‑ sets out selection criteria for national designation, and describes the types of designated landscape already included on The Register of Historic Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England.

Other news

Communities Secretary unshuffled, with a new card added - housing It was announced on 8 January that Communities Secretary Sajid Javid had become SoS for Housing, Communities and Local Government, as part of Prime Minister Theresa May’s Cabinet reshuffle.

The Department for Communities and Local Government was also renamed – to reflect ‘this Government’s renewed focus on delivery’ ‑ to become the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

In his first speech (to the LGA Local Government Finance Conference on 9 January) following the Cabinet reshuffle and the name change of his department, SoS Sajid Javid said:

‘…as you know, my department has a new name – the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. A name that reflects the fact that this government is absolutely committed to building the homes our country so desperately needs.

I’m delighted to have been reappointed to lead on this. I’ve been clear that fixing our broken housing market is my number one priority. Great places for people to live and put down roots.’

His other planning‑related comments referred to the scale of local authority (LA) funding, business rate reforms and how the New Homes Bonus will not be changed this year (as a consultation outcome).

Also on 9 January, it was confirmed that Alok Sharma had been replaced as Housing and Planning Minister by MP for Esher and Walton Dominic Raab (he was previously at the Ministry of Justice). A no. 10 tweet said Raab would be ‘Minister of State for Housing’ ‑ it was later confirmed he would also have responsibility for planning.Heather Wheeler and Rishi Sunak are new HCLG Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State; Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Jake Berry and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth remain in post. The full list of appointments and roles can be viewed here.

lichfields.uk

ENGLAND PLANNING NEWSFEBRUARY 2018

6

Armitt appointed as NIC ChairIt was announced on 18 January that Sir John Armitt had been appointed as the new Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC).

He takes over the role from Lord Adonis, who resigned at the end of 2017. Sir John has been a member of the Commission since it was formed in 2015 and formerly, was its Deputy Chair.

Lords debate on housebuilders

On 11 January, a debate on housebuilders took place in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Library published a briefing paper in advance of the debate that examines housing supply and demand particularly in England.

Concluding the debate, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Under Secretary of State for MHCLG and Wales Office) said:

‘We recognise and welcome the contribution made by Britain’s larger housebuilders towards getting the homes that we need built – it is worth putting that on record. Many have done and are doing that to a high standard, though not all, by any means. I will say something about housing design in a minute. We need to recognise that there are market controls and provisions for shareholders to control bonuses and indeed salaries, which are subject to being published.’

In response to points made during the debate on the use of conditions, and no doubt anticipating the current consultation regarding the draft Pre‑Commencement Condition Regulations, Lord Bourne said:

‘Some noble Lords touched upon planning conditions. My noble friend Lord Hunt spoke on this from a different angle, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. They will both recall that the provisions in the Neighbourhood Planning Act forbid the use of pre‑commencement conditions without the applicant’s agreement. We are now working on the regulations in relation to that, not least on the speed with which these matters are dealt with, which I hope will help in terms of delivery.’

And returning at the very end to the subject of design again, Lord Bourne added:

‘Quality design is very close to my heart. I believe very strongly that we need a robust framework to ensure proper design. The Government have embedded design principles into the NPPF and guidance, and this will be further strengthened when we publish the new NPPF early this year […]’

It is important to say that the department has made great strides. We are creating a team of newly appointed design experts to be led by an architect with a research background. She will be in post by the end of January and will be supported by other design and planning advisers with experience in the sector […]’

Homes England launched

Launched by Housing Secretary Sajid Javid on 11 January as the successor to the Homes and Communities Agency, Homes England is being described by MHCLG as the ‘new national housing agency’ and as:

‘…bringing together their existing planning expertise and new land buying powers, the new agency will play a major role in securing land in areas where people want to live, support smaller and more innovative house builders into the market and resource brownfield sites from across the country to deliver homes for families. Homes England will play a major role in fixing the housing market by helping to deliver an average of 300,000 homes a year by the mid‑2020s. […]

Homes England will develop a new commercial approach to acquiring, preparing, managing and developing land in areas of high demand and strategic importance.’

Subsequently and on 22 January, Mark Prisk asked the Housing Minister to report on the progress his Department had made in enabling the development of surplus public land for housing; he also urged him to challenge the Labour authorities that ‘own hundreds of acres of surplus land’ so that ‘we can turn that land into family homes’. The Minister replied:

‘The Government are providing LAs with money to help to facilitate that. I met Nick Walkley, the CEO of Homes England, last week to make sure that we get cracking on this top priority.’

Brownfield land registers: update

On launching Homes England on 11 January, MHCLG gave an update on LAs’ now quite considerable progress in publishing the brownfield land registers that were due before the end of last year:

‘Around 310 LAs have now published a brownfield register, revealing over 26,000 hectares of developable land on over 16,000 sites. More registers [are] expected to be published over the next few weeks. By prioritising both the areas where people want to live and developers can build, Homes England will use the registers to progress brownfield development across the country.’

Housing Secretary launches New Towns All-party Parliamentary Group

Speaking at the launch of the New Towns All‑party Parliamentary Group on 17 January, Housing Secretary Sajid Javid referred to the Government’s ‘ambitious vision for the New Towns of the 21st century’. He gave the Telford Land Deal as an example of how ‘Government and New Towns can work innovatively to power further growth’, before turning to the locally‑led garden cities, towns and villages that are now being supported, and the Housing Deal with Oxfordshire too.

Devolution update

Devolution annual report 2016 to 2017

The annual report published on 10 January by MHCLG brings together information on the devolution agreements reached between Government and areas up until 31 March 2017.

Yorkshire’s devolution

On 9 January, a Westminster Hall debate on Yorkshire’s devolution took place. The Commons Library had published a debate pack beforehand to support the discussion, which presents a summary of the situation to date:

lichfields.uk

ENGLAND PLANNING NEWSFEBRUARY 2018

7

‘Since November 2014, the Government has agreed devolution deals with a number of localities across England[…] In May 2017, ‘metro‑mayors’ were elected in six areas that had negotiated devolution deals. No metro‑mayors have been elected to date in Yorkshire: a ‘metro‑mayor’ for the Sheffield City Region is due to be elected in May 2018. Both West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire have negotiated devolution deals with the Government […] Latterly […] a proposal termed ‘One Yorkshire’ has emerged, aimed at securing a single devolved authority covering the whole of Yorkshire.’

At the end of the debate, HCLG Under‑Secretary Jake Berry responded to Dan Jarvis MP with reference to ‘the current impasse with the South Yorkshire devolution deal’, saying: ‘The difference between his proposed solution and ours is that we believe that the best way to ensure that further devolution can take place anywhere else in Yorkshire is to fully implement the devolution deal for South Yorkshire first, including having an election.’

According to the Minister, this would be via ‘a compromise solution’ that had been tabled before Christmas, that could enable ‘the stalemate in South Yorkshire’ to be broken. The election referred to is still to take place in May this year:

‘It is proposed that the four South Yorkshire councils agree to do all that is necessary for the Sheffield city region deal to be implemented as soon as practicable after the mayoral election. That would require them to first undertake the consultation on the functions that should be devolved to the combined authority and to the Mayor and to give their consent to any order effecting that devolution.

The Government would then agree with Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield councils that if a ‘one Yorkshire’ solution were to come forward or a deal were developed, and the Government and councils concerned were able to consent to it, the constituent parts of the existing South Yorkshire deal would be free to leave that deal at the end of the initial mayoral term, on the proviso that the transport arrangements covering South Yorkshire had been considered.’

Government inquiries and reports

Treasury Committee recommends abolishing borrowing cap In its inquiry report that was published on 22 January on the Autumn Budget 2017 , the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee draws forthright conclusions and makes very clear, concise recommendations on various Government housing initiatives, as follows:

’24. The only sustainable way to address housing market affordability, both for first‑time buyers and other households, including those in the rental sector, is to significantly increase the supply of new housing. The Autumn Budget alone is unlikely to achieve this.

[…]26. Over the past 60 years, private

housebuilders have consistently provided around 150,000 units per year. Given this historical record, it is unlikely that the Government’s target of 300,000 new homes per year will be met without a significant increase in the supply of units provided, either directly or indirectly, by LAs and by housing associations.

27. The decision in the Budget to raise the Housing Revenue Account borrowing cap by £1 billion is a positive step. However, in order to increase LA construction to levels sufficient to meet the Government’s 300,000 target, the Housing Revenue Account borrowing cap should be removed. Raising the cap would have no material impact on the national debt, but could result in a substantial increase in the supply of housing, allowing LAs to determine the level of additional housing needed in their area.

28. The bidding process proposed by the Treasury to allocate the additional £1 billion of LA housing revenue borrowing may not direct resources to areas of greatest housing need. The criteria for allocation are currently unclear. The Chancellor stated in his speech that the bidding process will be aimed at ‘high demand areas’ but the Budget itself referred to ‘areas with high affordability pressure’. The Treasury should establish clearly defined, needs‑based criteria for

allocating the additional borrowing. 29. Greater measures are needed to

increase housing supply. 300,000 homes a year will not be achieved with the current measures. The Government will need to show greater commitment to housing supply to achieve its aspiration and will need to bring forward additional policy measures.’

On the same day, when asked in the House of Commons whether the SoS would adopt Labour’s plans to lift the borrowing cap on councils’ Housing Revenue Accounts, the Housing Minister responded:

‘We are not going to take on Labour’s plans in this area or any other, because frankly they are not sustainable. We are going to increase the affordable homes budget to £9 billion up to 2021.’

But when asked if the Treasury Select Committee ‘can recognise the social and fiscal benefits of removing the council house building borrowing cap completely, why can’t the Government?’, he replied:

‘Of course, the borrowing cap has been raised by £1 billion, but it has to be done sustainably. We remain open‑minded, however, and are keeping it under review.’

Effectiveness – or otherwise - of current land value capture methodsOn 19 January, the House of Commons CLG Committee (CLG) announced a new inquiry, into ‘the effectiveness of current land value capture methods and the need for new ways of capturing any uplift in the value of land associated with the granting of planning permission or nearby infrastructure improvements and other factors’.

The deadline for written submissions is 2 March 2018; they are invited in response to the following questions:•• Are current methods, such as the CIL,

planning obligations, land assembly and compulsory purchase adequate to capture increases in the value of land?

•• What new methods may be employed to achieve land value capture and what examples exist of effective practice in this area, including internationally?

•• What are the possible advantages and disadvantages in adopting alternative

’

lichfields.uk

ENGLAND PLANNING NEWSFEBRUARY 2018

8

and more comprehensive systems of land value capture?

•• What lessons may be learned from past attempts to capture the uplift in value?’

Letwin review of build out: new details

Having been announced in the Autumn Budget that the Government would set up a review panel, chaired by Sir Oliver Letwin, to ‘explain the significant gap between housing completions and the amount of land allocated or permissioned, and make recommendations for closing it’, the panel working with Sir Oliver Letwin was announced on 14 January.

The review’s terms of reference were published on the same day, stating that the practical steps that are to be recommended for closing the above referred‑to gap ‘should support an increase in housing supply consistent with a stable housing market in the short term and so that over the long‑term, house prices rise slower than earnings’.

The review will provide ‘early findings’ in an interim report in time for Spring Statement 2018 and a full report, including ‘practical steps to increase the speed of build out’, for Budget 2018.

Healthy high streets: good place making in an urban settingA Public Health England (PHE) report, ‘healthy High Streets: Good Place Making in an Urban Setting’ ‑ together with a practice resource summary – was published on 17 January.

UCL’s Institute of Health Equity was commissioned by PHE to ‘synthesise the latest and most relevant evidence’ for local decision‑makers and others involved in ‘creating the high street’. It aims to provide street design principles that are ‘effective in making high streets more inclusive, safe and healthy and that promote social integration, particularly in areas of high deprivation’. Bespoke recommendations are made to architects, planners and urban designers, and to directors of public health, and local authorities. Particularly for the latter group, recommendations include:

‘4. Use planning and licensing policies to influence the retail offer

on the high street, protecting locally‑owned retail stores and tackling over‑concentration of certain shops, to conserve retail establishments that stock healthier, locally sourced, products.

5. Ensure plans and strategies for businesses, transport infrastructure and social and community services maximise opportunities for health improvement, particularly for those most vulnerable to health inequalities.’

House of Commons Library

The House of Commons Library has published briefing papers giving a summary of: • licensing and planning issues relating to

betting shops in Great Britain; • the forthcoming Green Paper on older

people; and • the debate concerning the expansion

of Heathrow Airport (looking at: the work of the Airports Commission and the subsequent decision by the Conservative Government to support a third runway and sixth terminal at the airport; the environmental issues and concerns surrounding the decision; the economic case; and how the scheme will be taken forward).