Written evidence submitted by Barratt
Developments Plc (LOCO 100)
Barratt Developments is Britain's best known housebuiler
and has sold over 300,000 new homes around the country and is
one of the leaders in terms of low carbon design, urban regeneration
and social housing provision in addition to its mainstream market
housing activities.
The Company recently announced its results for the
year ending 30 June 2010 which showed it completed almost 11,400
dwellings despite the challenging economic background of which
16.5% were social housing. The Company is building on some 360
sites in England, Wales and Scotland. It re-entered that land
market in 2009 and has since agreed terms on almost 13,400 plots
and has an owned land bank of about 50,700 plots.
Therefore, the Company has a particular interest
in the operation of the planning system and seeks a system which
provides certainty as a foundation of its business so that it
can invest with confidence. The Company particularly wishes to
see a planning system that delivers a sufficiency of implementable
housing sites and this evidence concentrates on the importance
of arrangements to ensure the localist approach works.
SUMMARY
¾ Barratt
Developments Plc (BD) wish localism to deliver an effective planning
service.
¾ Development
Plan production should be encouraged further by:
(a) more details for the transitional arrangements
following the revocation of RSSs; and
(b) immediate implementation of the presumption
in favour of sustainable development.
¾ New
local plan guidance is required to clarify the operation of a
collaborative approach to plan making and the need for a robust
evidence base.
¾ Development
control decisions should be founded in the presumption in favour
of sustainable development.
¾ Greater
efficiency in the development control process can be made by simplifying
pre-application and information requirements.
¾ Changing
the Use Classes Order, allowing Third Party Appeals and encouraging
deals with objectors will only serve to delay and confuse and
thereby undermine the potential for localism to deliver.
BACKGROUND
1. BD have an interest in the delivery of an
effective planning service. This evidence is only focused on that
service.
2. The planning service of particular interest
to BD is:
(a) Efficient development plan production.
(b) Efficient determination of planning applications
which represents value for money.
3. BD are mindful of the proposals set out in
"Open Source Planning" which provides for the implementation
of localism as it affects the planning service. Following the
general election, a great deal of planning policy announcements
have been related to the revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies
and the translation to Open Source Planning proposals into government
policy will be subject to later announcements or the National
Planning Framework. Therefore, there is the opportunity for the
Committee to make recommendations that can be an input into the
policies yet to be announced.
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
4. The Government clearly wants to seek planning
via Development Plans and that is supported by BD. It is clear
that the effect of revocation of the Regional Spatial Strategies
will be the need for a new planning system and primary legislation
will be required to bring this into effect. Such legislation will
not be on the statute books until November 2011 and given that
it will most likely be followed by Regulations and the National
Planning Framework will not be effective until April 2012.
5. In the meantime it is not satisfactory that
Development Planning comes to a halt and there is no proper basis
for decision making. The Government sought to cover this transitional
period in the letter of the Chief Planner on 6 July 2010. BD have
commented in its response to the Select Committee on the Revocation
of Regional Spatial Strategies that these transitional arrangements
require supplementing and that evidence need not be repeated here.
6. It is recognised that in the transitional
arrangements, the Government has urged local authorities not to
stop but to continue to produce plans. However, there is no specific
sanction or penalty if local authorities simply put their pens
down for the time being.
7. BD are aware of the proposal for the New Homes
Bonus and have welcomed the principle. BD has some reservations
about its effectiveness and whilst details are currently sketchy,
it is not likely to be sufficient to create the urgency for local
authorities to produce a development plan.
8. Open Source Planning also referred to the
concept of a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
It also said "that if new local plans have not been completed
within a prescribed period then the presumption in favour of sustainable
development will automatically apply". This is welcomed by
BD and seen as a potentially significant sanction. However, there
are key issues as to what is meant by a "prescribed period"
and when is legislation to put this into effect is anticipated.
If we are two or more years away then its value as a sanction
is severely limited.
9. BD consider that given the large number of
authorities who have announced they are steeping back from producing
plans in the light of the revocation of RSSs, the presumption
needs to be operative now and so requires urgent legislation to
bring it into effect.
10. The idea of a presumption in favour of development
is not new. It was set out in Circular 22/80 by the then Minister,
Michael Heseltine. This presumption worked on the basis of a presumption
where a five year land supply did not exist. This is a similar
position to that currently provided by paragraph 71 of PPS3. In
both cases, the presumption did not amount to a free for all but
required the proposed development to be otherwise appropriately
located and sustainable.
11. The proposition in Open Source Planning amounts
to applying tests whereby development will not be brought forward
in the short term. Given the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies
and the response of many local authorities to review their development
plans, the presumption needs to act as an impetus for plan making.
12. The abolition of RSSs has resulted in a mixed
response from local authorities with many delaying production
of their Development Plans. This leaves an uncertain basis for
decision making which is compounded by an unclear basis on which
to calculate a five year land supply in the absence of an up to
date Development Plan.
13. Whereas paragraph 71 of PPS3 continues to
apply, the transitional arrangements set out in the Chief Planner's
letter of 6 July 2010 do not provide any clear basis of calculating
a five year supply before a new plan is in place. Disputes will
only be able to be settled at appeal but even in these circumstances
the rules are unclear. The Planning Inspectorate has advised its
Inspectors that RSSs cannot be given any weight but the evidence
that informed the preparation of the revoked RSSs may be a material
consideration.
14. Against the background, there needs to be
a presumption in favour of sustainable development unless material
considerations dictate otherwise in operation now. Therefore,
there should be a Ministerial Statement that gives weight to the
presumption as soon as possible to deal with current circumstances.
15. There are currently three situations where
the development plan forms the basis of decision making:
(a) where no up to date plan exists and the development
plan is an old style plan or saved policies;
(b) where an adopted Core Strategy is in existence
but an Allocations DPD is not yet adopted; and
(c) where an adopted Core Strategy and Allocations
DPD exist.
16. In the case of (a) that includes authorities
who were working towards a Core Strategy but have decided to put
their plan under review or otherwise on hold.
17. In the case of (c) the presumption would
apply as set out in Open Source Planning. However, in order to
give the presumption some force and meaning, the owner of any
site allocated for development in a plan should be able to apply
to the local planning authority for a "Certificate for a
Commitment to Grant Planning Consent". Such a certificate
could only be sought by the landowner and would not permit any
commencement of development. Planning consent would still be required
for details such as access, design, landscaping, etc, and such
consent could be sought in outline or full as currently provided
for under the Planning Acts. However, the Certificate would establish
consent in principle and would be bankable by the landowner. It
would also have the effect of removing any doubt that the principle
of the development could be opposed at the time of a planning
application. When the landowner seeks a certificate, which it
is suggested should be via a standard national form, the local
authority has a duty to respond in 28 days and the certificate
has a life up to the end date of the development plan.
18. Such a Certificate applied to allocated sites
should be straightforward and uncontroversial. However, in the
case of a windfall site it may be less straightforward. In these
circumstances the site is assumed not to be allocated for development
and is not subject to a policy restraint that militates against
development. If in such a case a local authority refused to issue
a Certificate then that decision should be capable of appeal as
if it were a planning application to test the reasonableness of
the Council's decision against local and national policies.
19. For planning applications submitted under
(a) there is no reasonable basis for a five year land supply;
old plans are out of date and the RSS figure has been revoked.
In these circumstances the local authority will need to formally
resolve its intentions. Where it is intended to proceed to produce
a Core Strategy, without changing the RSS requirement, in keeping
with their up to date Local Development Scheme, that should be
accepted as status quo and thereby unchallengeable. If the authority
intend to change their number then that will require justification
and to be tested through public examination. This amounts to a
Core Strategy and until such time as that is in place the default
position of the RSS requirement has to remain. No weight should
be accorded to a resolution to adopt a different number where
that has not been tested by examination.
20. In these circumstances, the presumption will
operate as provided for under paragraph 71 of PPS3 and so will
act as an incentive for those authorities that wish to plan in
a different way to come forward with their revised plans quickly.
21. For planning applications under (b), there
will be no dispute about the basis of the five year land supply
but there may be a dispute about the appropriateness of a particular
proposal. In these circumstances if the Allocations DPD has reached
the Consultation Draft stage it should be regarded as a material
consideration, otherwise the general test of sustainability will
apply.
22. In the absence of an adopted Core Strategy,
in order to be regarded as sustainable, a proposal has to be capable
of passing four tests:
(a) Are there proposals in a current development
plan that clearly outweigh the need for the land to be developed?
For example, the land is in the Green Belt, ANOB, National Park
or is designated for a recognised form of protection.
(b) Is the site capable of being developed within
the capacity of current infrastructure or that infrastructure
can be made available?
(c) Is the site located such that it is conformity
with the provisions (or can be made in conformity) of PPG13: A
Guide to Better Practice?
(d) Does the development conform to national
standards to be compliant with PPS1, Planning and Climate Change?
23. Effectively this amounts to the availability,
suitability and achievability tests in paragraph 54 of PPS3.
24. A basis of decision making has to be established
in circumstances where there may be no up to date development
plan for at least two years. In these circumstances, a presumption
in favour of sustainable development should apply. This does not
mean that other planning considerations such as design should
be disregarded; on the contrary, development will still be expected
to be acceptable planning terms and to have undergone public consultation.
25. Open Source Planning also referred to the
way in which plans may be drawn up. BD are concerned that without
clear guidance which emphasises the urgency for these processes
to be carried out quickly, development plan production could be
delayed for years to come. Whilst it may be considered that in
that case the presumption operates, applications may have to be
argued in terms of their conformity to national guidance and in
many cases these issues may fall to be resolved by appeal. A better
way forward is to have adopted up to date plan as the basis for
decision making.
26. In particular, BD are concerned about the
potential for two issues to be subject to clear guidance:
(a) the operation of a collaborative approach
to plan making; and
(b) the requirements for robust and credible
evidence to support plan policies.
27. In respect of collaboration, Open Source
Planning refers to a process whereby plans to be drawn up from
the "ground level" up with neighbourhood proposals coming
together to form a plan. This has the potential to run on for
ever as the local authorities seeks to resolve neighbourhood conflicts
and indeed may result in a wholly unsatisfactory plan whereby
the summation of the neighbourhoods does not amount to a cohesive
plan which meets the needs of the local authority as a whole.
28. A straightforward way of delivering the objective
of local input to achieve a required objective would be:
(a) The local authority draw up a plan showing
where change could potentially occur—so it would omit areas
such as Green Belt, protected areas or existing development where
no change is likely.
(b) Accompanying such a plan would be evidence
to demonstrate the quantum of development that needs to be provided
to meet the various needs—housing, employment, etc—with
basic guidance about rules to be applied to ensure sustainable
decisions/nationally compliant decisions can be made. The evidence
would supply alternatives based upon the overall direction of
the local authority—eg economic growth led, meeting housing
needs, conservation of the environment, etc.
(c) These documents would be the subject of local
consultation and would include a determination of the local view
about the overall development direction for their area.
(d) The local authority would then publish a
plan which provides the best fit to meet the results of the consultation.
This plan would be deposited to enable objection which would then
be subject to determination at an Examination in Public in front
of an independent Inspector. The Inspectors role would be to consider
only two factors:
(i) is the plan compliant with the evidence?
(ii) are the proposals the most sustainable that
could have been produced?
If the answer to either question is in the negative
then recommendations would be made for change. If the changes
are so large they are in effect a different plan then the Inspector
would recommend the plan is not approved. The Inspectors would
report to the Secretary of State who would sign off the plan (or
not) accordingly.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
29. Various inquiries and policy proposals have
been made in recent times to make the development control process
more efficient, not least of which was the Killian Pretty Report.
BD consider there is very little evidence that all these efforts
have been accounted to a more efficient process. The fact is it
is too complex with too many conflicting interests being sought
to be resolved and too much unnecessary information is bogging
down the process.
30. The prospect of a localist agenda adding
to this already tortuous process would be likely to be a further
brake on development. Therefore, if a greater local input into
development decisions are to be made then it cannot be simply
on the basis of adding another layer of consultation onto an already
overloaded system. There has got to be major simplification.
31. BD supports the contention set out in Open
Source Planning that:
"….making it a guiding principle of the
planning system that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development. Specifically, we will make it unlawful for a local
authority to refuse permission for a development if:
¾ The
application is from a Local Housing Trust that has the required
level of local support and meets certain standard criteria including
conformity with the national planning framework, or
¾ The
application:
(i) conforms to the local plan (and hence with
the national planning framework); and
(ii) is accompanied by a payment of the agreed
level of local tariff from the developer to the local planning
authority; and
(iii) in the case of larger projects, is the
product of an appropriate public consultation process eg Enquiry
by Design (or similar)"
32. It is recognised that this presumption requires
to operate on the basis of local consultation on matters of design.
However, the attitude embodied in such an approach has to be given
further meaning by:
(a) pre-application meetings having a recognised
status; and
(b) information requirements proportionate to
the development proposal.
33. BD welcome the prospect of local councillors
not being disenfranchised in the decision making process by being
consulted on a development proposal. In Open Source Planning this
is only expressed as a freedom to campaign on behalf of their
constituents. This should be extended to clarify it also means
being able to support a development proposal if they judge it
is in their constituents interest. Indeed BD consider that local
councillors should be involved in any pre-application discussions.
However, BD consider that where pre-application discussions have
taken place they should be recorded and be a material consideration
in the determination of any subsequent application. Failure to
provide consistency between pre-application advice and subsequent
council reports should be regarded as a matter eligible for costs
in any subsequent appeal. The pre-application process (not including
consultations with local people) should be to provide technical
advice and policy interpretation; as such it should not be a lengthy
process but time limited to no more than a month and should not
be used to seek to be an alternative to the formal planning application
process.
34. The Killian Pretty report addressed the issue
of seeking to make development information requirements proportionate
and the Government came forward with proposal accordingly under
the banner of "Development Management". These proposals
were disappointing and did not seem to go to the heart of effecting
a more balanced approach. BD consider Killian Pretty should be
asked to look at this again and make further recommendations,
especially in relation to the information needed for outline planning
applications.
35. BD do not consider that proposals to increase
the efficiency of the development control system by tinkering
at the edges will work. It is tempting to feel there is a gain
to be had by relooking at the Use Classes Order but brief examination
shows that such changes create as many problems as they solve.
The recent debate in the House of Commons regarding the ability
of supermarkets to open up in a high street where a change of
use from other retail classes is not required bears testimony
to the local concerns that may arise of the Use Classes Order
is changed further.
36. Similarly, BD do not feel that providing
for third party rights of appeal will enhance the cause of localism.
On the contrary it will encourage several objectors who will delay
and frustrate development that are otherwise welcomed. If a proposal
has been put to the community and the effect of the New Homes
Bonus is to persuade that community that development is beneficial,
it is wholly wrong that those (who could easily be encouraged
by purely anti-development campaigns) could delay the community
benefit being realise. Localism, which delegates decision making
to the local area has sufficient weight in favour of the local
interest not to require further provision which encourages selfish
behaviour. The appeal system should continue to operate on the
basis of an independent adjudication between the proposer of the
development and the local authority, acting on behalf of the local
interest.
37. On this same basis, it would be entirely
wrong for planning decisions to be frustrated by objections by
local neighbours acting in an unreasonable way. Local concern
needs to be addressed and a balanced judgement formed. The planning
process should not be encouraged to operate on the basis of developers
buying off the opposition. Planning is not about the right of
individuals to require payment to keep quiet and no matter what
rules are sought to define "a significant majority"
or "immediate vicinity", there will be those who will
go around whipping up potential claimants rather like unscrupulous
claimant compensation specialists do in relation to accidents.
Local people are free to express their concern and developers
should have to recognise that concern and adjust the development
proposal if they can. If matters cannot be resolved then it is
a matter for the planning process to provide a balanced judgement.
CONCLUSION
38. BD want the planning system to operate efficiently.
Localism need not be an impediment such a desire. However, just
as revocation of RSSs are a major change from the previous system,
so the rest of the planning framework has to operate under a new
attitude. This attitude has to be founded in one which broadly
welcomes development in the local interest.
39. To reach this state of changed attitude will
require action in the short term to ensure development planning
continues and planning applications are brought forward. BD are
concerned that if the planning system remains in uncertain transition
the chance of localism being shown to be capable of delivery will
be frustrated and the Government's ambitions of delivering more
dwellings thwarted.
October 2010
| 
