Written evidence from Leicestershire County
Council Liberal Democrat Group (ARSS 87)
A SUMMARY OF
OUR MAIN
VIEWS ARE
AS FOLLOWS
The abolition of the RSS and Regional Plans should
be welcomed in regard to the loss of top - down targets for housing
development.
With the loss of the RSS an unintended consequence
could be the loss of a positive regional/sub-regional strategic
planning role. LEPs are not appropriate bodies to fulfil this
work and we have concerns that there will be pressure to return
to a centralised system— undermining the spirit of localism.
The method by which the Government has gone about
implementing a new planning system has caused confusion and has
arguably given the wrong impression of the future of housing and
planning,
There is no evidence to suggest that housing delivery
in the East Midlands is currently restrained by a shortage of
land with planning permission.
The proposed incentives (New Homes Bonus & Community
Right to Build) need to be clarified in relation to the plan led
system, accountability and the role of local councils,
Proposed incentives also appear to reinforce perceptions
about home ownership wherein more is needed to support a rental
sector,
We believe changes in the "Open Source Planning"
may not ensure the delivery of suitable infrastructure to support
developments.
Local Enterprise Partnerships prospects for supporting
housing will be limited and could actually prove counter productive
in terms of infrastructure delivery.
IMPACT & IMPLICATIONS
OF THE
ABOLITION OF
REGIONAL HOUSE
BUILDING TARGETS
FOR LEVELS
OF HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
1. Broadly speaking the loss of the Regional
Housing targets should be welcomed as it has begun the move to
re-establishing the role of local councils in a democratic, accountable,
plan led approach to housing.
2. It is however hard to ascertain what
the longer term impact and implications of this change will be.
Figures in the East Midlands RSS Annual Monitoring report for
2008-09 states that there were 97,000 outstanding planning permissions
for new dwellings on 31 March last year. This clearly shows that
contrary to claims by the building industry there is no shortage
of land available for housing in this area and the problem is
the economic situation and in particular, up front infrastructure
costs. It is worrying that some areas have seen a drop in housing
provision, but this needs to be balanced with the large number
of recently submitted and anticipated applications in parts of
Leicestershire on greenfield land. The abolition of the RSS targets
has had little affect on the pressure for building in this area
but it has raised expectations in affected local communities and
we are concerned that it has created the erroneous impression
that the loss of the Regional Plan housing targets would mean
the end of housing in certain areas. A major factor driving this
pressure is the requirement in PPS3 for each LPA to have a five
year land supply. This is working against the government's stated
intention to get rid of centrally imposed controls and allow councils
to develop appropriate planning policies in consultation with
their local communities. Planning decisions are being overturned
on appeal simply because the LPA has a small shortfall of land
(eg 4.5 years) on a particular date. This is undermining the primary
purpose of LDFs to identify the most appropriate sites and bring
them forward in a way that gives certainty to local people. If
the targets are going to be set locally it follows that the selection
and release of sites must also be determined locally.
3. Whilst it is clear that the intention
is to create local plans that match the need for housing to local
circumstances, there is still some uncertainty about how the old
plans will influence the conversion of Local Development Frameworks
(LDFs) into Local Plans and how far local areas can decide to
carry on with the old system and focus on urban concentration
with Sustainable Urban Extensions.
LIKELY EFFECTIVENESS
OF GOVERNMENT
POLICY
4. It is very awkward to predict the affect
of government policy on long term supply. Recent events in the
South East and South West are very troubling but, as mentioned,
are more synonymous with the gap between the abolition of policy
without the establishment of a new system.
5. Taking "Open Source Planning"
as a benchmark of future policy there are considerable issues
that could affect long term supply. However this has to be seen
in terms of specific issues relating to the local plans, New Homes
Bonus, Community Right to Build and infrastructure. In addition
the operation of strategic planning will need to be considered
in order to ensure the "balancing" of development across
a region or sub-regional area.
6. Another concern is that "open source"
planning relies upon the strength of a local councils "local
plan", and this appears to be essentially a transformed and
updated LDF. The problem here is twofold, on the one hand no clear
mechanism has emerged to change an LDF into a local plan and secondly
how these plans will operate in the wider strategic framework.
7. It is hoped that the development of local
plans will ensure that planning and development is based on the
bedrock of the plan led system which was sadly lacking previously.
However, as mentioned, there is no understanding of how the issue
of housing numbers will be treated. It is assumed that to some
extent that emerging legislation will afford councils the power
to change their local housing targets, but again there is no mechanism
to ensure that an area has reasonable targets to match against
sustainability.
8. This will be a particular issue in areas
where the local planning authority does not have an established
and up to date LDF that could be easily converted into a local
plan. The challenge here is that in developing one, the local
planning authority will have to build into its plan an expectation
of how demand for housing in the immediate area will increase
over time. With the current uncertainty about what will remain
in terms of strategic planning (especially regarding upper tier,
placed based budgeting and Local Enterprise Partnerships) it could
result in major disparity's across a sub-regional area in terms
of areas that are prepared/able to accommodate more development
and those that have constraints or are not.
9. In terms of New Homes Bonus programme,
we have concerns about the practical elements of the programme.
Whilst incentivised construction through bonus payments is fundamentally
sound on a small scale, there is some concern that the affect
will be nullified by other areas of government policy for example
the wider changes to government fiscal policy.
10. The medium term impact of the CSR could see
a net reduction in Formula Grant which will affect council services
and resources, in addition Formula Grant is supposed to be the
avenue for distributing the Chancellors reward for 0% Council
Tax. Our current working suggests that these pressures alone will
add considerable costs to the Formula Grant, and it could be problematic
to add further burdens to the Grant. Additionally the complexities
of these additional resources in Formula Grant have not been worked
out in the context of a negative grant settlement. By this we
mean, that even if a council pursues 0% council tax, approves
large amounts of construction and actually supports the delivery
of the houses, it could still receive a negative settlement in
formula grant which will have a knock on financial cost in terms
of capital investment or worse could see further service reductions
as part of a wider fiscal change. We feel that government should
ensure that appropriate legislation accounts for this.
11. A further complication is how the bonus is
divided, whether the local planning authority will keep 100% of
the funds or if it is to be shared with upper tier authorities,
or even divided along Council Tax precept ratios. These will need
to be clarified as the impact on housing supply will vary according
to these variations.
12. In addition it should not be assumed that
the extra resources for affordable housing will necessarily improve
affordable housing supply. Overall the provision of affordable
housing is a mixture of intermediate and social housing and the
need/ratio for this will vary between areas. Whilst the bonus
may well bring forward more mixed developments this will not necessarily
increase overall supply of affordable units, and it will require
local authorities to have the ongoing responsibility and power
to request affordable housing (with clear ratios between intermediate
and social) as part of their local plans. It will also be essential
to have some sort of bonus in relation to the improvement and
conversion of (especially empty) properties. Unless the bonus
is paid to each new "unit" that is made available to
house local people, it will simply become a construction bonus,
the LGA position on this point is something that we support and
echo.
13. Moving on to the proposed "Community
Right to Build", we broadly welcome the suggestion that communities
have the power to allow limited development in their immediate
area, but this has to be part of the plan led system and still
be pursued through Developmental Control. We feel this will support
rural regeneration and if the proposals are clear enough could
see a marked improvement in Affordable unit delivery, but within
the established planning process.
14. We echo the response of the "Planning
Officers Society" in raising further practical concerns of
how the policy could work, particularly in relation to how support
can be given to communities to avoid landowner and developer collaboration/intimidation.
In addition we are looking for some sort of legislative guarantee
that affordable over market housing is always preferred.
15. However, we feel that again the government
has made a suggestion without reference to practical planning
issues. Whilst we support "Community Right to Build",
we are worried that developments on this programme could circumnavigate
infrastructure monies (such as S106), placing a further burden
on rural infrastructure and services. We are also concerned about
the requirement for councils to co-operate but are not (apparently)
allowed the role to positively engage and where necessary block
development. The overall assumption that a community has the skills
and capacity to undertake this sort of decision is problematic,
and taking the issue outside of the plan led system is complex
in terms of possible legal challenges and could have impacts for
those applications made via the plan led system.
16. Concern exists over how an individual proposal
will fit within the overall spatial development of the district/borough
and how it could ride rough shod over green wedge/belt and other
landscape designations. Whilst "Community Right to Build"
could deliver units in areas that need them, it could also undermine
the local plan that the local planning authority is required to
establish. On the positive side this policy could see the development
of parish council's capacity to engage with the planning process
which could support wider planning and housing issues in the immediate
area.
17. In particular we would be keen to see some
work to ensure that applications to build 20 units would always
come with a condition preventing further development. This is
to prevent developers from "creeping" developments made
up of 20 home sections over a period of time. We would also hope
to see how "Community Right to Build" will fit alongside
that proposal under "New Homes Bonus" in terms of payments,
section 106 money and local plans.
18. Overall, we maintain that it is very difficult
to assume the impact of emerging government policy in terms of
housing delivery and long term supply. The current proposals for
an open source planning system do appear to return a strong vein
of localism to the plan led system, but there is some complexity
in how this newer local system will seek to balance delivery with
practical local considerations. Fundamentally, we feel that infrastructure
delivery is something that is not dealt with in any detail, and
aside from some minor changes to money raised from development,
we feel that government has missed the opportunity to offer local
alternatives such as "Tax Increment Financing".
19. In terms of delivering affordable units,
the government must also consider the value of investment in rental
markets. Whilst home ownership is a noble aim, current housing
economics in terms of land prices and household reliance upon
ever increasing returns on property as a means of saving/pension/credit,
means that this will remain a distant dream for many. A suitably
expanded rental market that can support long term tenancies needs
to be considered. The Charted Institute of Housing paper entitled
"Widening the rental housing market" (August 2010) makes
this case very well, and we would be keen to explore the role
of local councils and the Voluntary Community Sector in developing
a solution locally on this. It is our view that an appropriate
delivery of affordable rental units could also relieve the pressure
on local housing markets by allowing some competition on rents
and targeted rental types to local need.
LOCAL ENTERPRISE
PARTNERSHIPS AND
STRATEGIC PLANNING
20. The current development of LEP's seems to
be resulting in a sub-regional RDA. This is counterproductive
and actively undermines the potential localism in the governments
other proposals for housing and planning.
21. With the development of LEP's there is the
potential that on a small scale (such as a single Housing Market
Area) they could replace the role previously undertaken by upper
tier Councils (Counties). This should be opposed as LEPs will
not be democratically accountable and would simply replicate the
role and powers given to RDAs under the discredited Leaders Boards.
In such a case, this could easily led to a return to the top-down
model as a means of "better co-ordination" of local
plans and infrastructure strategies. In addition, the original
purpose of LEP's is around economic growth, and whilst we accept
that housing, infrastructure and planning are integral to this
in a wider sense this should not result in LEP's being given a
planning role outside the democratic and accountable processes
of local government and the local planning authorities.
22. Overall we feel that the development of LEPs,
is also opaque enough that its own resources and direction cannot
be easily matched against sustainable housing and planning. In
particular we do not believe that any LEP will prefer to invest
in housing related infrastructure over business related. We also
question to what extent business can/should be involved in the
development of housing and infrastructure and what powers they
could possess in a time of limited resources.
23. On a broader theme, there is some confusion
over the role that LEPs will have bearing in mind that each economic
area is to develop its own unique proposals, if these proposals
simply replicate the old RDA model on a sub-regional level, this
should raise questions about the LEP policy itself. Our preference
would be to retain the limited role of upper tier planning councils
as Section 4/4 authorities, bringing together local plans and
LEPs into a wider infrastructure plan and acting as a co-ordinating
advisory body for investment. This could also be useful as a complimentary
factor to new capital investment models such as Tax Incentive
Financing.
CONCLUSION
24. We thank the Committee for the opportunity
to contribute to this call for evidence. Overall we think the
potential for housing and planning is broadly promising, but the
government should never have taken the route it has in abolishing
RSS' without clearly setting out and establishing what is going
to replace it as this has been counter-productive in the short
term.
September 2010
| 
