planning and development club, november 2016

Planning and development clubFriday 11 November, Nottingham

Retail Impact Assessments

Dmitrije Sirovica

Overview

• Retail considerations– Policy and Guidance– Consideration of Case law

National Planning PracticeGuidance – Sequential Test• Town centres first in plan-making & decision taking

1. Town centre locations first; if not2. Edge of centre locations; if not3. Out of town centre locations

• Preference for accessible sites well connected totown centre

• Supports viability and vitality of town centres

NPPF Para 24

Local planning authorities should apply a sequentialtest to planning applications for main town centreuses that are not in an existing centre and are not inaccordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. Theyshould require applications for main town centreuses to be located in town centres, then in edge ofcentre locations and only if suitable sites are notavailable should out of centre sites be considered…

NPPF Para 24

… When considering edge of centre and out ofcentre proposals, preference should be given toaccessible sites that are well connected to the towncentre. Applicants and LPAs should demonstrateflexibility on issues such as format and scale.

NPPF Para 26

When assessing applications for retail, leisure andoffice development outside of town centres, whichare not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan,LPAs should require an impact assessment if thedevelopment is over a proportionate, locally setfloorspace threshold (if there is no locally setthreshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m).

NPPF Para 26The assessment should include:• the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and

planned public and private investment in a centre orcentres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

• the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality andviability, including local consumer choice and trade inthe town centre and wider area, up to five years fromthe time the application is made. For major schemeswhere the full impact will not be realised in five years,the impact should also be assessed up to ten years fromthe time the application is made.

NPPF Para 27

Where an application fails to satisfy the sequentialtest or is likely to have significant adverse impact onone or more of the above factors, it should berefused.

National Planning PracticeGuidance – Sequential Test• Reiterates position in NPPF and the sequential

approach• It is for the applicant to demonstrate compliance

with the sequential test• LPA should support the applicant, including by

sharing any relevant information• The application of the test should be proportionate

and appropriate for the given proposal

National Planning PracticeGuidance – Impact Test• To ensure that the impact over time of certain out

of centre and edge of centre proposals on existingtown centres is not significantly adverse

• Impact must be assessed in relation to all towncentres that may be affected

• Applicant to demonstrate compliance• To be undertaken in a proportionate and locally

appropriate way, drawing on existing informationwhere possible

When should the Impact Test beused?• Proposals exceeding 2,500 m2 of floorspace unless

a locally appropriate threshold is set• Consider:

– Scale of proposals– Viability and vitality– Cumulative effects of recent developments– Impacts on strategy and planned investment

Checklist for applying ImpactTest• State of existing centres and the nature of current

shopping patterns• Time frame for assessing impact-first five years• Examine the ‘no development’ scenario• Assess turnover and trade draw• Consider a range of plausible scenarios• Any conclusions should be proportionate

National Planning PracticeGuidance – Disaggregation• Select Committee recommended disaggregation be

reintroduced in December 2014• LAs required to ask developers to demonstrate

evidence of flexibility over "the scope fordisaggregating specific parts of a retail or leisuredevelopment, onto separate, sequentiallypreferable, sites"

National Planning PracticeGuidance – Disaggregation• Argument that developers proposed development

was too big for town centre site- avoids sequentialtest

• ‘Loophole’ in sequential test– Other grounds for an authority to refuse a planning

application for an out-of-town development

• Government rejected proposals: not necessary toreintroduce disaggregation to NPPF or to alter theevidence requirements of LAs for sequential test

Key Case Law

Tesco Stores Limited v DundeeCity Council [2012] UKSC 13• Challenge to grant of planning permission by Tesco

for a supermarket on a large industrial estate outof centre

• Council had to consider whether criterion in theDevelopment Plan were met

• “no suitable site is available in the first instancewithin and thereafter on the edge of city, town ordistrict centres”

Tesco v Dundee Continued

• City Council interpreted “suitable” as “suitable forthe development proposed by the applicant”

• Tesco argued “suitable” meant “suitable formeeting the identified deficiencies in retailprovision in the area”

• Court agreed with the Council• “Suitable” meant suitable to the development

proposed by the applicant subject to a need forflexibility

R (Zurich Assurance Ltd) v NorthLincolnshire Council [2012] EWHC3708

“Developers, and planning authorities, work in thereal world. Marks & Spencer has assessed the onlyavailable town centre alternative to the site, andconcluded that a development that was smaller thanthat proposed, or one with a more restricted rangeof goods, was neither commercially viable norsuitable for their commercial requirements”

R (CBRE Lionbrook (General Partners)Ltd) v Rugby Borough Council [2014]EWHC 757• JR: redevelopment planning permission• C intended to redevelop retail space in town centre• C gave 2 alternative sites; LPA held not likely to be

viable and deliverable within a reasonable timeframe-LPA had not erred in concluding that no “availablesequentially preferable site”

• LPA not failed to comply with screening under EIA, noterred in application of retail development plan, noterred in applying sequential and impact assessment,acted lawfully in rejecting proposed alternative sites

R (CBRE Lionbrook (General Partners)Ltd) v Rugby Borough Council [2014]EWHC 757

“Out of centre sites can be considered only if “suitablesites” in the town centre or on the edge of a centre are“not available”. Suitability and availability are mattersof planning judgment. They are not matters on which thecourt will substitute its own view for that of thedecision-maker. The decision-maker's exercise ofjudgment upon them will not be vulnerable to challengeexcept on Wednesbury grounds.”

Aldergate Properties v Mansfield DistrictCouncil [2016] EWHC 1670 (Admin)• JR of food store 3.5 miles out of town centre; retailer

also owned site 1 mile out• C owned town centre site; objected as adverse effect

on ability to attract investment to own site• C argued that LPA ignored sequential test on basis that

retailer already had site 1 mile from town, and failedto consider development plan

• Individual commercial characteristics could not dictateapplication of test

• Para 23 and 24 NPPF are not isolated from each other

Aldergate Properties v Mansfield DistrictCouncil [2016] EWHC 1670 (Admin)

“Suitable” and “available” generally mean “suitable” and“available” for the broad type of development which isproposed in the application by approximate size, type,and range of goods. This incorporates the requirementfor flexibility in [24] NPPF, and excludes, generally, theidentity and personal or corporate attitudes of anindividual retailer. The area and sites covered by thesequential test search should not vary from applicant toapplicant according to their identity, but fromapplication to application based on their content.

Rushden Lakes (Ref:APP/G2815/V/12/2190175)

“If a site is not suitable for the commercialrequirements of the developer in questionthen it is not a suitable site for thepurposes of the sequential approach”

Rushden Lakes (Ref:APP/G2815/V/12/2190175)

“…in terms of size of the alternative site, providedthat the applicant has demonstrated flexibility withregards to format and scale, the question is whetherthe alternative site is suitable for the proposeddevelopment, not whether the proposeddevelopment could be altered or reduced to that itcan be made to fit the alternative site.”

R (Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd) vHillingdon LBC[2015] EWHC 2571 (Admin)

• Sainsburys extending existing store• New applicant applied for planning permission;

refused- did not meet sequential test• Re-applied with smaller plan- planning permission

granted as would not significantly impactSainsburys

• Sainsburys sought Judicial Review on grounds thatonce sequential or impact test had failed, proposalshould be refused

R (Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd) vHillingdon LBC[2015] EWHC 2571 (Admin)

• JR dismissed- impact and sequential tests passed.• Officers not obliged to accept claimant's view- had

evidence to substantiate conclusion• Reasons for differential conclusions clear• Claimant’s need for further floor space would be

met by the claimant's redevelopment and newdevelopment not likely to impact significantly onthe claimant's expansion; both could be supported

Warners Retail (Moreton) LTD v CotswoldDC & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 606• Appeal against refusal of JR• Proposed development situated 500m from the

town centre- appellant's food store 120m fromedge of town centre

• Further development was contrary to local plan,but material considerations justifying development

• Appellant submitted that the committee had beenmisled by decision in Tesco Stores Ltd v DundeeCity Council

Warners Retail (Moreton) LTD v CotswoldDistrict Council & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ606• No “rigid, mechanistic” application• Need test withdrawn from policies for retail

development in the NPPF– However, ‘need’ considerations still material

• Para 24 of NPPF: applicants and LPAs expected to"demonstrate flexibility on issues such as formatand scale”

• Policies in Tesco Stores case were similar enough toallow for comparison- did not vitiate decision

Teleford & Wrekin Borough Council v SoSCommunities & Local Government [2014]EWCA Civ 507• Appeal against refusal of planning permission for

out of centre food store• Conflict between two sites, X and Y; inspector had

to determine which site was preferable• Decided on "sequential advantage if one out of

centre site could achieve better town centrelinkages than the other“

• Y was not superior to X, despite being 500m closerto town

Teleford & Wrekin Borough Council v SoSCommunities & Local Government [2014]EWCA Civ 507

• Maintained definition of ‘sequential advantage’-better town centre linkages

• Drive to X was 1.5 minutes longer than Y from towncentre- inspector was entitled to hold that “notlikely to put people off combining a trip to thefood store with a visit to the town centre by car”

R (Tesco Stores Ltd) v Forest ofDean DC [2015] EWCA Civ 800• Appeal against LPA grant of planning permission for out

of town development, inc rival supermarket• Significant adverse impact on nearest town centre

contrary to NPPF & local development plan• S106 agreement agreed to fund shuttle bus and town

centre improvements• Planning officers recommended permission be refused-

benefits did not outweigh conflicts• Argued s106 did not comply with s122 of CIL Regs 2010-

“not fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind”

R (Tesco Stores Ltd) v Forest ofDean DC [2015] EWCA Civ 800• Held: officers had advised that package could

mitigate in part, but not possible to make aninformed judgement on how far it would mitigate

• Whether prospect of mitigation was too speculativewas a matter of planning judgement

• Conclusion that package could mitigate the harmwas not irrational

• S106 did not fail to comply with s122 of CIL Regs2010 on basis that mitigation could not bequantified- not required in every case

Determining the Application

• Outcome of sequential test and impact test willinform the decision

• Other material considerations must still beconsidered

• Mitigation– Potential use of conditions– Potential use of Section 106 obligations

Questions?

Tips in relation to the HighwaysAct 1980Stephen Coult

Introduction

• Highways Act 1980 now 36 years old.• Consolidated previous provision• Deals with the creation, diversion, obstruction and

extinguishment of the public right of way itself,and the creation, funding and maintenance of thephysical features of the way itself and associatedapparatus.

Highways Act – Main Provisions

• Familiarity with– S38 Agreements for adopting roads once brought up

to acceptable standards– S278 Agreements for execution of works by a

highway authority at the expense of others.

• But want to identify some of the more unfamiliarprovisions of the Highways Act.

Todays Talk

• Protection against creation of new footpaths• Getting repairs done• Stopping Up• Hoardings• The Advance Payments Code• Adoption by Notice• Disabled Ramps• Trees and the Highways Act

Protecting against creation of newfootpaths S31(6).• The problem

– It is possible for members of the public to claim thata track / route has been dedicated as a right of wayby the landowner by their failure to interrupt theuse of it.

– If a route has been used without force, withoutsecrecy and without permission for more than 20years it may be deemed to have been dedicated as apublic right of way

Cases

• The Godmanchester and Drain House of LordsJudgements 2007

• Wright v SoS Environment Food and Rural Affairs2016

The solution - S31(6)

• Landowner can give rights of way authority theappropriate evidence to negate an intention todedicate ways over the landowner’s land ashighway / public right of way.

• The effect of submitting a deposit, if followedby further declarations every 20 years, is tostop / negate any claim that there is publicrights of way.

The Process - S31(6)

• Application Form which must be signed by everyowner of land

• Ordnance Map showing the boundary of the land incoloured edging.

• Coloured lines used on the map to represent eachclassification of public right of way (Footpath,Bridleway, Restricted Byway, Byway Open to AllTraffic (‘Byway’).

• Applicant to sign a statement of truth

Getting Repairs Undertaken. S56• Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 provides a statutory process by which a

member of the public can go to the court and obtain an order requiring a highwayauthority to repair a highway maintainable at the public expense.

• The highway authority's room for manoeuvre in this process is limited. If thehighway in question is publicly maintainable — even if it is not properly recorded assuch — and is out of repair, then the court will make the order the complainantseeks.

• The highway authority can plead lack of funds or alternative priorities, but thesewill buy little extra time: once the complainant has satisfied the necessary tests,the order will follow.

• The courts have taken a narrow view on what constitutes an out of repair situation.Obstructions — things wilfully placed on, or done to, the highway — will not usuallymake a highway out of repair.

• An out of repair condition arises from neglect and decay, from the failure of ahighway authority to keep the highway in repair. See Worcester County Council vNewman [1975] WLR 912; Westley v Hertfordshire County Council (unreported),Byway & Bridleway 1998/10/74.

Getting Repairs Undertaken• Complaint under S56• s.56(1) A person ('the complainant') who alleges that a way or bridge

is:– a highway maintainable at the public expense or a highway which a

person is liable to maintain under a special enactment or by reason oftenure, enclosure or prescription,

– out of repair,may serve a notice on the highway authority or other person allegedto be liable to maintain the way or bridge ('the respondent') requiringthe respondent to state whether he admits that the way or bridge isa highway and that he is liable to maintain it.

• Complaint made to Magistrates or Crown Court if no action taken

Periods for repair. S56• Plainly the Justices cannot be 'Wednesbury unreasonable' in

stating a time period.• Barnes v Metropolitan Borough Council of Bury (1990) Case

No. A90 2375: The crown court gave the highway authoritybetween 19 and 20 months to do the work.

• Sorensen v Cheshire County Council, 9 November 1979:Judge David QC, in Knutsford crown court, allowed 24months for completion of the work; the roads were ancientstone carriageways then badly out of repair. The order ofthe court was that the out of repair section should berepaired at least to the same width as the good parts.

Periods for Repair S56.• Riggall v Hereford County Council (1979), action brought by a landowner resident

near one end of a long rough stone lane. Hereford justices ordered the roadrepaired by 1 December 1980 — 12 months. Interestingly the highway authority puta tarmac surface on this road consequent on the order.

• Seymour v British Waterways (1983): Leeds crown court ordered that a new bridgebe constructed over a canal within nine months and, in the meanwhile, atemporary bridge be erected at that point to accommodate users.

• Kind v Cumbria County Council (1998): Judge Phillips in Carlisle crown court gaveCumbria County Council 18 months to repair an old stone turnpike that wasseriously waterlogged.

• Kind v North Yorkshire County Council, (2000): Harrogate magistrates gave NorthYorkshire County Council 27 months to repair a very badly eroded and waterloggedstone unclassified road at Pockstones Moor, near Pateley Bridge.

• Seymour v East Riding of Yorkshire Council, (2000): Hull crown court ordered therepair, with tarmacadam or concrete, of a section of carriageway, inside sixmonths.

Stopping up under Highways Act.S116• Where areas of public highway are considered by the County

Council, as Highway Authority, to be unnecessary for highwaypurposes, the highway rights can be extinguished or ‘stopped up’by an Order made by Magistrates.

• Also diverted, provided a suitable alternative exists• Process - application made to the Magistrates Court by the Council

on behalf of an applicant under Section 116 of the Highways Act1980.

• If successful the Order will extinguish the highway rights over theland concerned and free it from Highway Authority control.

• Should the owner then wish to enclose or develop the land,planning consent may be required, including for the erection offences over 1 metre in height (if adjacent to the highway).

Stopping up by Squatting

• But note – no squatters rights on highway.• Smith v Land Registry 2010 Court of Appeal.

– S had lived in caravan on a highway for 12 years.– Claimed adverse possession– Land Registry submitted highway did not cease to be

simply because not used. Acquiesence could not authoriseobstruction.

– CA upheld maxim “once a highway, always a highway”.– No means in law by which as a result of occupying land

forming part of a highway any squatter could bring to anend the public’s right of passage.

Stopping Up Legal Implications S263.

• Under s 263(1) of the Highways Act 1980 ("the Act") the surface of anypublic right of way vests in the highway authority

• Once the highway rights are extinguished, control over the land reverts tothe freehold or leasehold owner of the subsoil. In many cases, this willnot be the Highway Authority.

• Where the owner of the subsoil is known, an applicant will need tonegotiate a transfer of the land. For example, on many housing estatedevelopments the land still belongs to the developer.

• It may be prudent for an applicant to both ascertain the owner of the landand to negotiate any costs involved prior to section 116 procedures beingcommenced.

• Where the owner of the subsoil is not known and cannot be found, there isa rebuttable legal ‘presumption’ that the owners of the adjoiningproperties own the subsoil beneath the former highway out to the centre-line of the former highway. This is more often the case with older areasof highway.

• However note Southwark v Transport for London (now at Court of Appeal)and vesting of highway land.

Stopping Private Access s66 and s80• Private access can be stopped up without compensation.• Matter determined in the recent case of Cusack v Harrow LBC [2013] the

Supreme Court.• Court asked to consider whether Harrow Council should have used s.66

Highways Act 1980 instead s.80 of the same Act.• Both empower a local highway authority (the Council) to do the same

thing, that is, block someone’s private access to the public highway (theroad). The thing is, if they had used s.66 then the Council had to paycompensation; in contrast, by opting for s.80 no compensation waspayable. For obvious reasons the claimant (Mr Cusack) argued that theCouncil should have used the s.66 power.

• Whilst the Court of appeal found for Mr Cusack, The Supreme Court took adifferent view, finding in favour of the Council for the following reasons:– the argument that s.80 was of more general application and s.66

specific, was not accepted – just because s.80 did not specificallymention safety as a reason for using the power did not matter, it wasimplicit; and

– on the human rights point, deprivation of access to the public highwaydid not amount to a deprivation of property, but instead was anexercise of control over property.

• Although still an action subject to the Human Rights Act, in this case itwas held that the use of the s.80 power was consistent with the Council’sHuman Rights Act obligations.

Hoardings S172• A developer is under a statutory duty to erect the

hoarding before the beginning of works so as toseparate the buildings from the street.

• If the developer does not erect a hoarding or fence hecould be prosecuted under ss5 of S172 for not having ahoarding.

• The County Council can require that a convenientcovered platform and handrail is erected to serve as afootway for pedestrians outside the hoarding but this isa discretionary matter.

Hoardings in Practice• BJ involved in case where shopkeepers complained about the absence of

a covered platform and footway which was badly impacting on theirbusiness.

• Advised our client that complaints should be directed at the CountyCouncil for not reasonably exercising its powers to require the platform

• There are no statutory compensation provisions that apply to suchinstances.

• Providing the developer has not interfered with private covenants, albeiton a temporary basis and, it would be stretching public land compensationlaw to the limits to suggest that a developer could be liable for anytemporary diminution in the value of the shopkeepers interests, even ifthe developers actions have been causal.

• Ultimately should be the developer’s defence, that he or she has donewhat they were required to do by the law.

Advance Payments Code (S219)

• If no S38 in Place fallback can be S219 Advance Payments Code.• S219 states

– Where it is proposed to erect a building for which plans are required to be deposited with the local authority

in accordance with building regulations, and the building will have a frontage on a private street in which the

street works authority have powers under the private street workscode to require works to be executed or to execute works.

No work shall be done in or for the purpose of erecting thebuilding unless the owner of the land on which it is to be erectedor a previous owner thereof has paid to the street worksauthority, or secured to the satisfaction of that authority thepayment to them of such sum as may be required under section220 below in respect of the cost of street works in that street.

APC Process (S219)• Service of S220 Notice within 6 weeks of planning permission being

granted.• Specifies amount to be deposited or secured in respect of street

works charges for those dwellings for which approval has beengranted.

• Prevents work (and work would be an offence) with fines forbreach.

• Can have exemption notice• Payments registered as a land charge• Alternatives forms of security include

– a mortgage or second mortgage on the development land;– a completed Section 38 Agreement; or– a temporary bond.

Adoption by Notice - Section 228

• If an area of land is required to be adopted by the County Council, forreasons such as facilitating further development or because it haspreviously been maintained by the Council, the County Council mayexercise the Highway Authority's functions under Section 228 of theHighway Act 1980 in respect of adopting the area of land as highwaymaintainable at the public expense.

• The Section 228 procedure must only be used where the owner of therelevant area of land is not known.

• The procedure involves posting notices in accordance with Section 228along or in the vicinity of the land to be adopted.

• The notices states that if any landowner wishes to object to the adoptionthey do so in writing to the named council within one month from thedate of the notices being displayed on site.

• If no objections are received, the land is deemed to be adopted. Shouldobjections be received, these are determined by a Magistrates Court.

Fun and games with Adoption

• Redrow v Knowlsey (2014)– Court of Appeal determined S38 did not limit what could

be required by way of payments.– Redrow forced to pay £39k as commuted sum for street

lighting maintenance.• Betterment Properties v James Carthy (2010)

– Contract required road to be made up under S38.– Subsequent contract failed to address the S38 proposals

and left B without access to public highway.– Intention of agreement held not relevant.

Fun and Games with Adoption (2)

• Beezer v Durham (2010)– Contract to provide adopted road for school site– Durham no longer require and want to sell.– Court of Appeal held that Beezer still had to provide

road.• Bovis v Persimmon (2010)

– Bovis had exercised option but right to rescind if bypassnot “open to public” by date.

– Part of dual carriageway coned off on due date.– Court of Appeal held that bypass not open to public and

Bovis able to get money back.

Disabled ramps S147ZA• Section 147ZA provides for agreements relating to improvements for

benefit of persons with mobility problems• Agreement allows either owner, lessee occupier or to carry out works

or highway authority to carry out works on payment.• Conditions can be imposed

– for the maintenance of the structure as replaced or improved, and– for enabling the public right of way to be exercised without undue

inconvenience to the public.• Consent still required from owner or others with interest who are not

party to agreement.

Trees and the Highways Act.

• Lots of Tree Powers under the Highways Act• Section 64 The Highway Authority may plant trees, shrubs and other

vegetation either for ornament or in the interests of safety.• Section 79 The Highway Authority may direct a landowner to alter any

tree, shrub or other vegetation that obstructs the view at a corner• Section 96 The Highway Authority may plant trees and shrubs and

undertake works as necessary to maintain, protect or remove them. Ifdamage is caused to an adjacent property by the planted trees andshrubs, the owner may be entitled to compensation.

• Section 132 It is an offence to inscribe or affix any picture, letter, sign orother mark upon a Highway tree without the consent of the Authority.

Trees and the Highways Act.• Section 136 The Highway Authority may seek a court order requiring an owner to

cut, prune or plash (layer) a hedge or prune a tree if the highway is being damagedby the exclusion of the sun and the wind by a hedge or tree.

• Section 138 It is an offence to plant a hedge in a Highway without writtenauthority.

• Section 141 It is an offence to plant a tree or shrub within 15ft of the centre of thecarriageway subject to sections 64, 96 and 142.

• Section 142 The Highway Authority may grant a license to the owner of anadjoining property to plant and maintain or to keep and maintain trees and shrubsin the highway.

• Section 154 The Highway Authority may serve notice requiring the cutting orfelling of a hedge, tree or shrub which endangers, obstructs or interferes with thepassage of vehicles or pedestrians, including the view of drivers or the light from astreet lamp. The work is required be carried out within 14 days.

Trees and the law

• Dillner v Sheffield City Council (2016)• Dillner sought to protect trees from felling.• Claim brought challenging powers to carry out

works.• Court held that Highways Act 1980 provided all the

power that a local highway authority required tocarry out works.

Supplement on Highway Trees andProtection through TPOs etc• Neither S198 (power to make Tree Preservation Orders) nor S211 (Trees in

Conservation Areas) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provide anyexclusion for Highway Authorities from the effect of either provision.

• In 2008 the law changed such that urgent works to trees, which previouslyrequired no particular action, now require prior notification of the LocalPlanning Authority.

• The test is that there is an immediate risk of serious harm. Five workingdays prior written notice is required.

• Work should only be carried out to the extent that it is necessary toremove the risk.

• When a highway authority gets consent for a highway scheme from theSecretary of State this also authorises works to trees.

Contact us…

Dmitrije SirovicaE: [email protected]: 0115 976 6238

Stephen CoultE: [email protected]: 0115 976 6152

Strong communities with homes and jobs

Government Housebuilding initiatives& Housing Supply

Mark Banister FRICS ACIHSenior Manager (Nottinghamshire)Homes and Communities Agency

POLICY CONTEXT

Delivering Major Projects


Government priorities

• Ambition to deliver 1 million homes by 2020 andsupport people to buy own home

• Spending Review set out 4-point plan for housing,focused on low-cost home ownership and reforms toplanning system to free up more land

• £20 billion of capital investment over 5 years – mostambitious housing plan in a generation with doubling ofbudget


Housing and Planning Act

• Act introduced in October 2015 and received RoyalAssent on 12 May 2016

• Wide-ranging Act, legislating on housing, planning,compulsory purchase and land use

• In some areas, detailed implementation will bethrough secondary legislation


Starter Homes

• Act provides statutory framework for the delivery ofStarter Homes

• Detail of what will be in secondary legislation –including the duty on local authorities to require aproportion of Starter Homes on reasonably sizedsites – currently awaiting Gov’t response toconsultation


Self build and custom build

• Requires local authorities to meet demand bygranting permissions for suitable sites

• Detail of the duty – and exemptions – to be set out insecondary legislation

• Potential to increase demand for self build andcustom build through new HCA Home Building Fund


Planning system

• Devolves further planning powers to London Mayor

• Creates local registers of land – to be used forbrownfield land and custom and self build register

• Introduces concept of permission in principle

• Extend planning performance regime to apply tosmaller applications


Planning system

• Allows conditions to be attached to developmentorders for building operations so they are consistentwith those for change of use

• Requires financial benefits of proposals fordevelopment be reported to planning committees

• Allows SoS to place restrictions or conditions on theenforceability of planning obligations relating toprovision of affordable housing


Planning system

• Allows developers who wish to bring forwardapplications for housing relating to a majorinfrastructure project to apply for consent undernationally significant infrastructure planning regime

• Modernises and speeds up process for creatingUrban and New Town Development Areas andCorporations


Land use

• Wide range of measures to improve CPO regime bymaking it clearer, fairer and faster – to bestrengthened further through NeighbourhoodPlanning and Infrastructure Bill

• Creates duty on Ministers to engage with councilswhen preparing to dispose of land; requires publicbodies to report on use of land; and extends powersof SoS to direct bodies to dispose land

HCA PROGRAMMES & DELIVERY UPDATES

Delivering Major Projects


Public land

• Release of public land for 160,000 homes by2020/21, HCA acting as the main disposal agent forsurplus government land

• Working with public bodies, HCA’s aggregate publicsector land role will provide capacity for 36,000 newhomes of which 13,000 will be directly commissioned

• Also purchasing and selling brownfield private sectorland to facilitate at least 30,000 Starter Homes


Accelerated Construction

• In January, PM set out that Government would pilotthe direct delivery of housing – ambition to deliver13,000 homes through a pilot on HCA land, with 40%Starter Homes

• HCA will contract directly with the private sector tobuild homes at an agreed pace, with the agencytaking increased sales risk in return for a greatershare of the rewards


Starter Homes

• £1.2 billion land fund to support delivery of 30,000homes

• Equity investment and acquisitions

• Prospectus launched March 2016,

• Initial EOI May 16,


Estate Regeneration

• Government has made available £150m of loansavailable to private sector developers and RPs

• Funding is available for 4 years to 2018/19 for arange of regeneration activities

• Will increase the quality of housing on estatesencouraging ambitious redesigning of estates in waysthat make them better


Private sector housebuilidng

• New Home Building Fund, which will provide £3 billion of loansto house builders

• £2 billion in long term loans focused on delivering infrastructureto support strong future pipeline of housing supply – unlock160,000-200,000 homes

• £1 billion in short-term loans to diversify and support innovationby supporting small and medium builders, custom builders andinnovative construction methods – deliver 25,500 homes


Home Building Fund (1)

• Loan thus schemes viable

• Competition or Complimentary


Home Building Fund (2)

• Timescale – 10 to 20 years +

• Innovation – market not proven eg housingspecifically for the disabled

• Difficult projects eg brownfield regeneration, listedbuildings

• Financing flexibility – fund against peak cash flow onphased scheme, recycle sales income


Housing Zones

• Prospectus launched August 2014

• 20 Housing Zones announced March 15 to supportdelivery of 34,000 homes,

• Shortlist of 8 to support further 8,000 homes

• £6.3m capacity funding


Garden Towns & Villages

• Prospectus launched March 2016 - EOI by 31 July2016.

• Development which are free standing, good design,use of brownfield sites, between 1500 and 10,000

• Possibility of further round and funding

• Announcement?


Shared Home Ownership AHP

• £4.7 billion Capital Grant to support delivery of newaffordable homes

• Prospectus launched April 16, bidding closed 2 Sept.

• 135,000 Help to Buy: SO

• 10,000 Rent to Buy

• 8000 Supported Housing


Conclusion

• Government committed to increasing housing supply andsupporting demand

• HCA provides development finance for both private and publicorganisations

• HCA combines land and investment programmes to make iteasier for house builders to develop and to help get homes builtmore quickly


Next…….

• Autumn Statement November 24th

• Housing White Paper announced by Gavin Barwell