Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Supplementary written evidence submitted by David Jackson, Head of Planning, Savills on behalf of Savills UK Ltd ("Savills") (LRB27)

L evelling Up and Regeneration Bill

Public Bill Committee

Summary

· This Written Evidence is provided as a supplementary submission to the Oral Evidence given to the Committee on 22 June 2022 (Citation: Levelling up and Regeneration Bill Deb, 23 June 2022, c65).

· The focus of the evidence is on:

o Clauses 80 -84 and Schedule 7 [Development Plans and National Policy]

o The proposed revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)/ National Development Management Policies (NDMP)

o The proposed Infrastructure Levy and S106

A final section introduces a small number of additional points not covered by the Oral Evidence.

1. Introduction

 

1.1 On behalf of Savills UK Ltd, please find enclosed written evidence to the Public Bill Committee – Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. Savills is a FTSE 250 leading real estate company, providing a range of agency, property management, investment management and consultancy services.

1.2 Savills is the UK’s largest planning consultancy, with over 200 chartered town planners covering every sector and area of the country from a network of 24 offices. The company is involved in all aspects of the planning process for clients who operate across all sectors and all land use types and the views expressed herein are therefore informed by this direct experience of operating within the current system.

2. Development Plans and National Policy

 

i) S.83 (2) (5B) – Material Considerations

2.1 ‘Strongly’ – the proposed insertion of this word into existing legislation seems a high bar to define in practise. Due to its ambiguity as a term, it is thus likely to be tested regularly in the Courts. Bearing in mind that what constitutes a ‘material consideration’ is already a heavily litigated area, introduction of this new test will very likely be the subject of the same legal exploration. The use of Policy would be better, to ensure decisions are primarily made in accordance with the development plan, and can be used to define in greater detail how material considerations may be approached in exercising planning judgements, including the ‘weight’ that should be attached to national policy in making them.

2.2 Over-prescription in legislation risks undermining trust in local plan making. For example, by shifting the balance in favour of national development management policies so clearly and decisively through the use of the term ‘strongly’, if, subsequent to a Local Plan being adopted, the Secretary of State decides to change national policy to put it at odds with the policy of a Local Plan, then that will override a document tested via consultation and examination.

 

2.3 Furthermore, the scope for allowing reasonable ‘departures’ where material considerations allow is at risk of being reduced. For example, in fast changing economic times, new requirements for, say, laboratories, battery plants, and logistics, are often ‘of the moment’ and can best be judged having regard to local material considerations and circumstances. A more prescriptive system with less discretion for local decision makers to accommodate the nuances of considerations to be weighed in the balance in certain cases could be to the disadvantage of innovation and local benefit. The strong weight loaded in favour of national policy proposed risks stifling local planning discretion unless the proposed national development management policies are kept up to date and responsive to new economic and social trends.

 

ii) Schedule 7: 15A and 15AA (6) and (9) (b) – Joint Spatial Development Strategies

2.4 The inclusion of the term ‘spatial’ implies that these should be able to identify broad directions and strategic locations for growth. They need to be capable of being applied to a prescribed geography, otherwise they cannot be spatial. Consequently, the ‘contents as may be prescribed’ under 15AA (6) will need guidance to be set out so that they properly fulfil their intended ‘spatial ‘function.

2.5 The prohibition under 15AA (9) (b) of an ability to specify ‘particular sites’ where development should take place seems unduly prescriptive. For example, nationally important development and infrastructure, such as ports, airports and power stations could not thus be specified within a Joint SDS other than in the most general terms. To avoid ambiguity and uncertainty in the public mind, this would benefit from the addition of ‘unless so prescribed’.

 

2.6 Under 15A (2) Joint SDSs cannot be produced in London, which is because the GLA produces the London Plan. However, in other MCAs, or combined authorities, joint SDSs also cannot be produced. Yet, these are likely to be the very areas which are priorities for ‘Levelling up’.   Being prescriptive in legislation seems a heavy instrument, when policy could be used in a more finely tuned and reactive manner to define which areas should produce Joint SDS or joint local plans. Important decisions on future direction may need arbitration if progress is to be made. The process for producing, examining and adopting a SDS must be clear, focused and short. In addition, the Bill still essentially refers to joint plan making as voluntary.  Policy will be required to best define those areas where strategic planning is a priority and should be undertaken if unmet needs are to be satisfied in a timely manner.

3. NPPF and the Proposed NDMP

 

3.1 The re-focussing of the NPPF so it contains policies on plan making, rather than decision taking, with many existing NPPF policies transferred to the NDMP, is welcomed. The NDMP will be an additional component within the planning system, consisting of policies ("however expressed") that apply in most areas to the development or use of land (e.g. general heritage protection). They will be designated by a Secretary of State direction after a public consultation, but not necessarily after any independent examination.

3.2 It is worth casting one’s mind back to the situation in 2012, when the NPPF was introduced. Roughly speaking, circa 1,300 pages of national guidance in the form of Circulars, Statements and PPGs were replaced with just 65. Care will need to be exercised that the NDMP does not become a similar ‘overstuffed’ volume to its pre 2012 counterpart. The term ‘national’ is important here. NDMP ought to be limited to those matters that are genuinely of national application, to ensure for example consistency and not become unduly detailed.

3.3 A key principle remains of having a ‘plan led system’. Likewise, speeding up Local Plan making is a key priority. So, stripping out unduly detailed and often repetitious policies from Local Plans is to be welcomed if this will speed up plan making and revision.

4. Infrastructure Levy and S106

 

4.1 Part 4, S.114: Infrastructure Levy is welcomed subject to the detail. It is supported that it should be charged on development value, which is simpler than the current approach of set rates by floorspace. We strongly welcome the retention of S106; it is simply not clear how complex developments can be delivered on an integrated basis with necessary physical and social infrastructure without it.

4.2 There are uncertainties, however. For example, a charge made at point of sale will not be relevant where that asset is retained under lease arrangements whether commercial or residential e.g. Build to Rent. Likewise, the period between completion and occupation may be considerable. Yet, infrastructure may need to be provided in advance of occupation, resulting in the burden often falling on local authorities. So, consideration ought to be given to a charge or part charge being levied on completion. In addition, Policy will need to clarify how affordable housing is to be delivered, if it is to be paid for by the Levy, and not S106. Therefore, it is right that the process should be comprehensively road-tested, which we understand will initially be through pilot schemes.

5. Other Matters

 

5.1 Part 4, S96: Street Votes- we are not sure what the issue is that the clause is seeking to address. It gives rise to a risk of planning decisions being made on the basis of matters other than policy, which is a concern. It could give the impression that all matters affecting a local area can be addressed by local activism; when actually what we should be encouraging is greater engagement in the planning process at all levels. As an observation, this form of ‘hyper-localism’ could result in even less development being consented, for example we can look at the controls imposed on onshore wind by Footnote 54 of the NPPF as a proxy. The footnote requires that onshore wind turbines in England have the backing of the ‘affected local community’; resulting in a 90+% drop off in applications between the 4 years prior to 2016 and the 4 years after its introduction. In addition, it is unclear how it would work in some areas, such as rural communities or mixed-use areas- e.g. do businesses have an equal vote to residents?

5.2 Part 4, S. 97: Crown Development - We assume that the application of this clause is for a very limited range of matters, for example the setting up of vaccine centres or related activity during a pandemic. it is sensible to have safeguards to ensure this is the case, rather than for general Government-related development; however necessary.

5.3 Part 5, S.116 Environmental Outcomes Reports – The introduction of Environmental Outcome Reports (EORs) is welcomed as a move towards more outcome focused assessments. Consideration of reasonable alternatives could be quite time consuming and problematic. Guidance on the scope of what is ‘reasonable’ will be necessary, otherwise this could readily become a device to protract decision making. The increased emphasis on monitoring is generally welcomed. However, this could have a burdensome cost implication over the monitoring period, which the developer will have to factor in and manage. Again, a test of ‘reasonableness’ will be necessary as will guidance on consideration of outcomes and any requirements for further mitigations. Any subsequent EOR Regulations made by the Secretary of State should ensure that the environmental protection is not diminished from the existing protections and must be consistent with any continuing international obligations.

July 2022