the Bidwells Election Special Planning Commentary

Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:40 Page 1
Planning Commentary
Spring 2015
Election
Special
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:40 Page 2
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:40 Page 3
With cross-party consensus on the
urgent need to dramatically increase
housing supply, the devil, as they say,
will be in the detail...
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:40 Page 4
Contents
Introduction ....................................................02
Key trends ......................................................03
Housing ..........................................................05
Green Belt ......................................................07
Environment ...................................................09
Localism v Strategic Planning ........................11
Duty to Cooperate ..........................................13
Contacts and research publications ...............15
Planning - Spring 2015
Scan the code for a digital copy of this publication, to keep or forward to a colleague.
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:40 Page 5
Introduction
As we approach the General Election, planning and development, most especially in relation to
the housing market, are at the forefront of the national conscience and uppermost in the minds
of all senior politicians. It is fair to say that the outcome of the Election will, in no small part,
be directly influenced by planning policy. With all parties committed to a dramatic increase in
the supply of housing, ongoing scrutiny, reform and intervention in the planning system are
inevitable. At the same time, planning policy with respect to commercial property needs to
assist rather than hinder employment growth and mobility and thereby foster economic
development. These are interesting times.
In this edition we direct attention towards a range of key issues
which have shaped manifesto policy and which will influence the
property market and economy after the Election.
Which policy?
With cross-party consensus on the urgent need to dramatically
increase housing supply, the devil, as they say, will be in the detail.
We consider the different manifestos and policies of the main
parties and assess their proposals for stimulating development.
The politics of Localism
Whilst the next parliament is unlikely to see new planning
paradigms introduced, following the seismic shift to Localism
and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) during the
current administration, there are still many and varied policy
details which need to play out in the real world. We consider the
difficulties and challenges which remain at local level, especially
in marginal seats.
Can London meet its needs?
What about the Green Belt?
Ever controversial, how can we meet the demand for housing and
maintain the economic vitality of our key cities without
compromising the Green Belt? We consider where the main
political parties stand on this issue and ask whether dogged and
universal adherence to the Green Belt principle is still appropriate
as a backdrop to development policy.
With revisions to the London Plan now adopted, we review
whether London can meet its projected housing development
needs without Green Belt encroachment and an upturn in
development in the Home Counties. How will the Capital impact
on the Bidwells region?
Mike Derbyshire, Partner
Head of Planning
07747 564122
[email protected]
Please visit Mike Derbyshire’s video blog at:
bidwells.co.uk/partner-blog
2
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:40 Page 6
Key trends
2.6
7.2
%
With economic growth set to continue strongly in
2015 and all other leading indicators looking
favourable, a further increase in planning and
development activity is inevitable in all markets
5.2m
%
UK GDP
Population growth
Rented households
(2015 forecast)
(England: 2012 to 2022)
(UK forecast: 2018)
Key points
n
Whilst economic growth in 2015 may be less strong than
last year, the economy is set to maintain an upward
trajectory in spite of a temporary slowing around the
Election. The planning and development sector will
continue to gather momentum in consequence.
n
With positive economic fundamentals, the planning system
will come under increased pressure this year to deliver in a
pro-growth context for both commercial and residential
property.
n
There has undoubtedly been a turnaround in the
development pipeline for housing to reflect planning
reform and an improving economy. Applications and
consents are up everywhere.
n
However, whilst construction orders and starts are edging
upwards, housing supply continues to lag demand by a
wide margin. Closing this margin will be a key challenge
for the next government.
A robust economy
The current administration must be pleased that, as the General
Election approaches, the economy is in broadly good shape.
With 2014 GDP growth just revised upwards to 2.8% for the full
year and final quarter year-on-year growth showing 2.7%, the
UK has entered 2015 in rude health. This bodes well for activity
and pricing across the property market. The pace of growth is
presently running at levels not dissimilar to pre-credit crisis
measures.
Population adds to growth pressures
In the period 2012-22, the population of England is projected to
rise by 7.2% to 57.3 million. This will obviously add further
pressure to an already structurally under-supplied housing market.
In London and the South East, these pressures will be still more
acute with London predicted to expand by a remarkable 13.0%
and the East and South East set to experience growth of 8.6%
and 7.8% respectively.
GDP quarterly change on previous year (2005 to 2015)
Regional population projections (2012 - 2022)
%
%
5.0
14.0
4.0
12.0
3.0
10.0
2.0
8.0
1.0
0.0
005
Q1
-1.0 2
1
6Q
200
1
7Q
200
1
8Q
200
1
9Q
200
1
0Q
201
1
1Q
201
1
2Q
201
1
3Q
201
1
4Q
201
6.0
4.0
-2.0
-3.0
2.0
-4.0
0.0
London
-5.0
-6.0
East
South
East
South
West
East
Midlands
West
Midlands
Yorks &
Humber
North
West
North
East
England
Source: ONS
Source: ONS
2015 looks healthy
Current Treasury consensus forecasts predict 2015 GDP at
2.6%, falling to 2.3% in 2016. For this year, the Election and
ongoing turbulence in the Eurozone present some downside risk.
However, even if the current forecasts prove a little high, the UK
is still likely to exhibit above-trend growth in excess of many
other leading economies.
Falling unemployment, improvements in the current account
deficit, ongoing reductions in the public sector net borrowing
ratio, together with nullified RPI and benign interest rates, all
point towards a comparatively stable and expanding economy.
With reduced oil prices, tempered commodity price inflation and
a buoyant stock market reflecting increased corporate
confidence and performance, property planning and
development can only increase this year.
3
There is thus no sign of any let-up in the demand side pressures
on the planning system in the foreseeable future, with economic
and demographic factors compounding the supply based
challenges faced by the politicians as we pass through the
Election process.
The scale of the problem is daunting
The following graph shows UK housing construction volumes
over the past 50 years in constant value terms across both the
private and public sectors.
The UK housing sector has transformed from a largely public to
a predominantly private domain. Whilst construction volumes by
value for private housing have risen in recent years, the rate of
increase, in historic terms, is very modest and public sector
values have actually fallen. The net result is a much smaller
housing construction sector than was the case 30 years ago.
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:40 Page 7
Key trends
219,715
137,020
30 years+
Housing consents
Housing starts
Under-supply in housing market
(2014, 10+ unit schemes)
(2014)
As widely noted, housing construction has been lagging demand
for at least three decades. This has created a housing market
within which the barriers to entry are so significant that home
ownership is falling and the rental market is expanding rapidly.
Residential planning approvals - GB Moving annual total (2007 to 2014: 10+ units)
250,000
200,000
Housing construction volumes (1964 to 2014: Constant 2005 prices, seasonally adjusted)
£ million
150,000
750
700
650
100,000
600
550
500
50,000
450
400
350
0
250
2011
2010
2009
2008
300
2012
2014
2013
Source: HBF/Glenigan
200
150
Construction still relatively muted
100
This being said, there is still much more to be achieved if the UK
is to come anywhere near a supply/demand equilibrium.
50
0
4
196
6
196
–
8
196
0
197
2
197
–
4
6
197
197
Public
Private
Source: ONS
8
197
0
198
2
198
4
198
6
198
8
198
0
199
2
199
4
199
6
199
8
199
0
200
2
200
4
200
6
200
8
200
0
201
2
201
4
201
– All
Whilst planning consents are burgeoning, the upturn in actual
starts and construction volumes has been less noteworthy.
Indeed, on a quarterly basis, starts and completions remain
volatile and a wholesale increase in completed units is not easy
to discern.
Rental market expanding rapidly
In the private rented sector, current projections suggest that
there will be around 5.2 million rented households in the UK by
2018. This will represent approximately 20% of the national
stock of dwellings.
Housing starts - England (2005 to 2014)
60,000
UK private rented sector projections (2004 to 2018)
50,000
Million
6.0
40,000
5.0
30,000
4.0
20,000
3.0
10,000
2.0
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: DCLG
1.0
0.0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Source: DCLG
DCLG data shows 24,990 housing starts in England for Q4
2014. This represents a 30% decline on the previous quarter
and the smallest quarterly volume since Q2 2012. The 2014
annual total for housing starts out-turned at only 137,020 units.
Pipeline is delivering more potential schemes
The latest data for housing approvals from HBF/Glenigan shows
58,432 residential consents in Great Britain Q4 2014 (in
schemes of 10+ units). This represented a 19.8% increase on
the previous quarter and took the 2014 annual total to 219,715
units.
With annual detailed consents now around and above 200,000
units, there is clear evidence that reforms to the planning system
and a sharply improved economy have stimulated higher
throughput in development control. With further reforms to come,
it seems likely that the period 2013-15 will go down as the
turnaround point for the UK housing market with regard to
residential supply.
It’s going to be a long journey
The overall picture that has emerged in recent months is of a
market which is delivering steadily rising volumes of consented
accommodation yet only modest increases in actual starts and
completions. With detailed consents now running at around
200,000 units per annum, there would appear to be hope that
supply might catch up with demand – estimated at 240,000
dwellings – following a 30 year under-supply.
However, with starts and completions still well under 150,000
units per annum, there is a long way to go before a balanced
market emerges. This makes the post-Election policy challenge
both critical in importance and substantial in scale.
4
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:40 Page 8
Housing
A little less conversation, a little more action please!
Bidwells planning and housing research suggests that the housing pipeline is starting to increase.
However, planning consents may not necessarily mean an increased supply on the ground and
housing starts are well below pre-recession levels (www.bidwells.co.uk/research/residentialcommentary-spring-2015/). The main political parties have been talking about increasing housing
delivery for the last 18 months and they will continue to do so right up to the General Election and
beyond. The concern is that it is talk delivering votes rather than delivering housing. A number of
the main housebuilders share the view that there is likely to be a lull in the market because of the
risk of the change to planning policy.
So what are the key issues for planning and housing delivery for the Election?
n
There has been a decrease in new affordable homes
Although there has been an increase in detached and
semi-detached properties in 2014, the volume of public
sector properties registered has decreased by 4%.
n
The young cannot get on the first rung of the
housing ladder
For many years, demand has outstripped supply and it is
almost impossible for the young to save a deposit to buy a
house/part of a house. There may be some light at the end
of the tunnel with the government’s starter homes initiative
for the under 40’s.
n
Rise of the Private Rented Sector (PRS)
Given the general unaffordability across the generations
from young to old, is there a short term escape route
presented by PRS?
http://www.nhbc.co.uk/search/?cx=001053047772510740247%3Aogiwepchqa&cof=FORID%3A11&q=annual+new+homes+statistics+review+2014&sa
=Search
n
Shortage of homes for the elderly
Eight million over 55's are living in houses that will become
unsuitable for them as they grow older. A National Housing
Federation study found about 100,000 new homes must be
built specifically for older people to meet the demands of
an ageing population.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/1
1445390/From-cheap-starter-homes-to-new-garden-suburbs-all-theparties-housing-policies-in-one-graphic.html
Rob Hopwood, Partner
Planning Team
01223 559207
[email protected]
5
On the following pages we consider the current position of the
main parties on this fundamental Election issue.
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:40 Page 9
What are the major parties promising the electorate to solve the housing shortage?
Conservatives
n
Although the Tories have not committed
to a specific housing delivery target, they
have recently stated that they will deliver
200,000 homes by 2020.
n The Tories have now committed to first
time buyers when the Prime Minister
unveiled his starter homes initiative. This
aims to deliver not 100,000 as stated
previously, but now 200,000 new homes
for first time buyers under the age of 40.
These homes will be 20% cheaper than
usual, with savings made by releasing
developers from Section 106 affordable
housing obligations and the community
infrastructure levy.
n The Tories have made suggestions that
90% of the new housing supply will be on
previously developed land and that the
Green Belt will continue to be protected.
(see Green Belt article on page 7).
n The Tories are not being prescriptive
about the delivery of and need for
affordable housing. They are purely
seeking to enable market housing to be
delivered as quickly as possible – better
market housing than no housing at all.
n Bidwells envisage that the Tories, if they
stay in power, will place more emphasis on
locally led bottom-up plans in the allocation
of land in Neighbourhood Plans almost
with implied status as ‘mini’ Local Plans.
Labour
n Labour has had time to set out with
some clarity its plans to deliver housing,
with a series of considered
recommendations from the Sir Michael
Lyons housing review. Labour has also
pledged to deliver 200,000 homes by
2020, through a range of initiatives
including national infrastructure provision,
New Towns and Garden Cities to help
deliver large scale housing schemes.
n Although Labour agrees that Local
Plans must seek to ensure that housing
allocations are delivered, it has also
suggested through the Lyons housing
review that local authorities can club
together to form new homes corporations,
bringing back the tried and tested strategic
planning controls.
n The development industry may consider
some of the measures that Labour is
proffering a threat to their business in
terms of viability, when over the last 10
years Labour has felt the Tory challenge
against the delivery of affordable housing
needs to be reversed.
n Labour has said it will introduce a ‘use it
or lose it’ policy that will hand powers to
local authorities to ensure that developers
do not land-bank their sites that have
received consent, but has also been clear
about bringing in a ‘Right to Grow’ policy
to ensure that authorities’ do not stand in
the way of neighbouring authorities
expansion plans.
Liberal Democrats
n The Lib Dems have pledged to eclipse
both the Tories and Labour by seeking to
deliver 300,000 homes per year if they
return to government.
n Although no details have been offered
recently, the Lib Dem party conference of
2014 trail-blazed at least 10 locally led
Garden Cities (between 15,000 and
30,000 dwellings), with up to five of these
along the planned Oxbridge railway line
between Oxford and Cambridge.
n Bidwells is actively exploring this
initiative given its market knowledge of this
geographical area within the LondonOxford-Cambridge Golden Triangle. The
Lib Dems also passed a motion at its
conference setting out plans to allow
authorities to designate ‘new home zones’
on larger sites so as to generate low cost
development and growth.
What the new government must do to
deliver the housing that is needed.
n It is clear that what is needed from a
new government is a new policy direction
and a clear overarching planning and
housing strategy which covers all tenures
across the generations. But we need
cross-party consensus.
n Housing is a long term issue which
cannot and should not be managed by
short term initiatives.
n All the main political parties agree the
need to deliver between 200,000 and
300,000 dwellings per annum across the
country.
n In the last 40 years, ambivalence
towards house building now means that
the safety valves now need to be released.
n The planning process must help to
release permissions for market, affordable
and PRS across the board for young and
old alike.
From the Bidwells planning
perspective, we would ask the new
government to instigate the following
measures to speed up the planning
process:
n The Lib Dems would burden developers
with extra costs in its house building
initiative by introducing a heating and
energy efficiency act that would include
tough new energy efficiency standards for
new homes.
n
Support new Garden Cities and Garden
Villages throughout the country. These
would range between 5,000 and 15,000
dwellings and allow the private sector
developers and institutions to plan and
deliver Garden Cities and Villages.
UKIP
n
Building on previously developed land
close to existing and proposed railway
stations or where improved road
infrastructure exists or is planned.
n
Release land within the Green Belt that
no longer serves a Green Belt purpose.
n
Strategic planning needs to make a
comeback to impel local planning
authorities (LPAs) to work together.
n
Local plans need to be reviewed every
three years and targets on housing and
employment need to be responsive to
the market and be reviewed on an
annual basis.
n
Government funding should pay for
more planning officers to process
Local Plans and applications.
n
We are aware that UKIP is very much
against Green Belt development and would
seek to incentivise the building of affordable
homes on previously developed land.
n
A promise has been made to return
700,000 empty properties to be used as
affordable housing.
n
A worry to volume house builders is that
major planning decisions would need to be
ratified by local referendum which would
be triggered by the collection of signatures
from 5% of an authority’s voters that could
overturn planning permissions for large
scale developments.
Bidwells urges the incoming government
to instigate the full suite of planning
initiatives to deliver truly mixed
development proposals to ensure housing,
employment, leisure, education and
cultural aspects are planned
comprehensively so that communities are
created, not just houses.
6
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:41 Page 10
Green Belt
“Too much house building going on the Green Belt”
Elizabeth Truss MP, Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, accepting that
the UK needed to address its housing shortage but not at the expense of the
“sacrosanct” Green Belt.
Conservative Party Conference 2014.
As we move towards the General Election, there is a plethora
of articles in the press citing key planning appeal decisions
issued by the Planning Inspectorate which demonstrate a
clear desire by Government to preserve the Green Belt for its
own sake irrespective of wider issues. Is this, though, the
approach which political parties will take after the Election?
Will the principles of the Green Belt, which have been long
fought over, weaken or change in the future to facilitate
growth or will the Green Belt continue to be perceived
equally as a strait-jacket for growth and a tool for
environmental protection?
In this article we consider where the main political parties
stand on this important and controversial issue.
Marcia Whitehead, Partner
Planning Team
01223 559305
[email protected]
7
Statutory Green Belt areas
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:41 Page 11
Conservative
Labour
Liberal Democrats
“Unmet housing need is unlikely to
outweigh harm to the Green Belt and other
harm to constitute very special
circumstances justifying inappropriate
development”.
The Labour Party highlights the practical
difficulties of the established approach to
development in the Green Belt and its lack
of effectiveness at a local level,
concluding that building on the Green Belt
to meet key housing targets would be
permitted in some circumstances.
The Lib Dems are somewhat quiet on the
issue of Green Belt but do see it as a
necessary part of the planning process
and a tool through which they will try to
secure support from the electorate. Their
approach to development is to focus on
brownfield development as being the most
attractive followed then by open land
including Green Belt.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/
local-planning
Nick Boles, March 2014
It is for local authorities to define and
maintain Green Belt land in their local
areas. The Government expects local
planning authorities with green belts to
establish Green Belt boundaries in their
Local Plans, which can be altered as part
of the plan review process.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/SN00934/green-belt
Updated Planning Practice Guidance
on Green Belt, DCLG October 2014.
“The Coalition Government has ensured
that strong protections for the Green Belt
are in place. The National Planning Policy
Framework is clear that most types of new
building are inappropriate in Green Belt
and by definition, harmful to it. Such
development should not be approved
except in very special circumstances.
Green Belt boundaries can be altered only
in exceptional circumstances following
local consultation and independent
scrutiny of the Local Plan. The total
amount of Green Belt in England has
remained constant at 13 per cent”.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publicat
ions/written-questions-answersstatements/writtenquestion/Commons/2014-12-01/216573/
Written answer by Brandon Lewis,
December 2014
Green Belts by their very nature straddle
local authority boundaries, and therefore
Labour’s comments that cooperation
between authorities is not working at a
practical level are interesting. Labour
advocate a much stronger Duty to
Cooperate with a mix of incentives,
disincentives and requirements to be used
to ensure cooperation between local
authorities through joint-planning
processes.
Labour go a step further and advocate
that ‘Right to Grow’ towns be given a
‘Right to Grow’ over their boundaries even
in the scenario where growth is opposed
by the neighbouring local authorities
responsible for granting planning
permission. This would potentially provide
a more flexible approach of allowing
development in the Green Belt where
housing targets dictate this is appropriate
and local communities are against such
loss.
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/200254
2.article
http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/agenda2015/policy-review/policy-review/lyonshousing-review
UKIP
UKIP’s approach is clear; they will not
concede “an inch of the British
countryside to residential development”:
“Politicians do not have the right to deprive
future generations from living the marvels
of the British countryside…”
UKIP Party Conference, Andrew
Charalambous, 29 September 2014
Reality
A Labour Government, on the face of their
comments to date, would provide
potentially a more flexible framework in
which support could be gathered for
development in the Green Belt, albeit with
one eye on a sequential approach having
first assessed the availability and
deliverability of brownfield options.
A Conservative Government is clearly at
present portraying a very clear pro-Green
Belt stance which will play well to an
electorate who fear extensive development
in villages and towns which sit in attractive
Green Belt areas. Whether the reality of
this stance can continue post-election will
be interesting to watch.
For cities such as London and Cambridge,
irrespective of the political party in control,
growth and development are key to
retaining their roles as world class cities
providing the employment opportunities
and housing growth which is being
demanded. In this scenario Green Belt
must be reviewed in a realistic manner by
whoever is in power; perpetuating a
strategy of restraint cannot continue.
So, post-election there is a real need to
ensure that decisions involving
protectionist policies and the need for
growth are taken in the very real interests
of all parties and the wider global market.
Will Green Belt
be loosened to
permit growth?
8
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:41 Page 12
Environment
After years of economic uncertainty and falling living standards, the 2015 election will see no
revolution in environmental policy. The aims of economic recovery and energy resilience are
fuelling a focus on business growth, house building and safeguarding a sustainable solution to
the country’s future energy needs. As a result, it is clear that most of the main political parties
(except for the Greens and Lib Dems) currently have little to say on the environment, with
environmental policy making remaining very much in the background as work in progress.
Key issues
n
Energy security and resilience is a key political imperative
across the board. The need for energy efficiency and new
energy generation is acknowledged by all parties. It is
clear that renewable energy will continue to form a
significant part of the picture going forward whoever is in
power, although the emphasis will vary.
n
The natural environment and its protection is not high on
the political agenda, leaving us with a rather litigious
approach to the protection of certain species and habitats
in this country as driven by European law. The election
manifestos of 2015 from the three main parties do not
suggest a radical change to this approach.
n
Flooding and its effects are acknowledged, with all parties
recognising the direct effects of flooding on local
communities. However, the approach to tackling climate
change through carbon reduction targets, decarbonising
our energy supply, and delivering low carbon growth and
economic development varies across parties, with some
proposing steps which could actually dilute the work
already achieved.
n
A large amount of environmental legislation in this country
is influenced and driven by European Directives.
The different political attitudes towards Europe and
support or otherwise for a Referendum on the UK’s
continued membership of the EU will clearly have major
implications.
9
James Alflatt, Partner
Planning Team
01603 229345
Neil Waterson, Partner
Planning Team
01223 559368
[email protected]
[email protected]
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:41 Page 13
Energy
All parties seem to acknowledge the need
for energy efficiency and new energy
generation, but differ on the balance
between renewable and other
technologies in meeting the country’s
future energy needs. The Liberal
Democrats have made the environment
one of their five main priorities for any
Coalition, and, along with Labour, are
committed to strengthening the Green
Investment Bank to invest further in
renewable technologies, home insulation
and energy efficiency measures. The Lib
Dems propose putting renewable energy
technologies at the heart of their energy
strategy with the introduction of the
Heating and Energy Efficiency Act,
as a means of simultaneously creating
significant numbers of green jobs and
introducing new energy efficiency
standards. Notwithstanding this, Labour
and Lib Dems remain relatively quiet when
it comes to fracking.
Conversely, and not surprisingly, the
approach of UKIP and to a lesser extent
the Conservatives demonstrates different
priorities. Both parties are less supportive
of, and in some cases hostile to, many
renewables technologies, particularly
onshore wind and solar. Both parties
however openly support fracking.
Nonetheless, with many of the country’s
coal and gas fired power stations due to
be decommissioned and numerous
nuclear plants nearing the end of their
lifespan, there is clear political consensus
on the need to improve the country’s
energy security through new sources of
supply. It is clear that renewable energy
will continue to form a significant part of
the picture going forward whoever is in
power, although the emphasis will vary
considerably.
Climate change
Whilst some parties give more credence to
this than others, all parties seem to
recognise the effects of flooding on local
communities have become an increasing
concern and are committed to doing more
to reduce and limit such effects. Policies
and proposals are mostly unclear but
appear to focus on better use of financial
resources to prevent such incidents
occurring.
However, the parties differ on the role of
emissions targets. The Liberal Democrats
along with Labour are committed to legally
binding carbon reduction targets including
the decarbonisation of the country’s
electricity supply by 2030. In the case of
the Lib Dems, this manifests itself in the
form of a proposed Zero Carbon Britain
Act, whilst Labour are proposing to create
a million hi-tech green jobs by 2025 with
the insulation of 5 million homes over the
next ten years.
Conversely, both UKIP and the
Conservatives are against setting binding
carbon reduction targets, with UKIP
seeking to repeal the Climate Change Act
2008, potentially placing the country
further behind in reaching any meaningful
carbon reduction targets.
Green taxes
There is nothing hard hitting from the three
main parties regarding green taxation,
with the Conservatives suggesting that
although they wish to lower the tax burden
in the next parliament, there would be a
place for taxes that did not hit people’s
pockets hard but promoted big behaviour
changes, an approach supported by the
Lib Dems in seeking to remove the
exemptions for charging for single use
plastic bags. Conversely, UKIP will seek to
abolish green taxes and charges in order
to reduce fuel bills.
The natural environment
It is fair to say that most political parties
have regarded the natural world as a low
priority over the years, leaving us with a
rather litigious approach to the protection
of certain species and habitats as
advocated by European law, which has
driven environmental legislation in the UK.
The Conservatives are clearest about
what they would do (including culling
badgers), Labour is vague and the Liberal
Democrats have committed to introducing
a Nature Act which would set legal targets
for biodiversity, clean air, clean water and
access to green space.
Environmental legislation
None of the parties has much to say on
this subject. The different political attitudes
towards Europe and their support or
otherwise for a Referendum on the UK’s
continued membership of the EU will
clearly have major implications. UKIP’s
determination to leave the EU and the
Conservatives’ commitment to a
referendum by 2017, could clearly lead to
significant changes and a potential
reduction in environmental legislation
should the UK ultimately leave the EU.
Conversely, both Labour and the Lib Dems
are committed to the UK’s continued
participation in the EU. Both parties also
highlighted a general commitment to
enhance environmental protections
including further air and water quality
targets in the case of the Lib Dems.
Transport
The three main parties support the
principle of high speed rail, which is
considered essential for the delivery of
long term national infrastructure.
Conversely UKIP proposes to scrap HS2.
Policies and proposals for further major
road building remain silent across most
parties, with the exception of UKIP who
remain opposed to tolls on public roads
and as a consequence will let existing
contracts for running toll roads expire.
The Lib Dems have the clearest transport
policy, with proposals to introduce a Green
Transport Act to establish a network for
electric car charging, incentivise greener
travel and ensure all developments are
designed around walking, cycling and
public transport.
Politicians put
environment on
back burner
Poor
implementation of
climate change
initiatives
EU directives
drive green
legislation
Renewable
energy policy is
only bright spot
10
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:41 Page 14
Localism v Strategic Planning
“
For those working in the industry, you cannot help but notice that politicians, both local and in
Westminster, are now in full ‘election’ mode. Here at Bidwells, the planning team are noticing a trend in
the number of schemes being ‘recovered’ and ‘dismissed’ particularly where the proposals go against
the wishes of local people. Whether the lenient approach and benefit of doubt weighing in wishes of
the local community on matters such as the apparent application of NPPF paragraph 49 for
Neighbourhood Plans will remain after the election, is up for debate.
”
One of the principal differences for planning this time around is that no party is proposing
wholesale reform. This is likely to come as a relief to many who are still trying to understand
the details of exactly how the current system operates in practice, particularly the Duty to
Cooperate as part of examinations and the difficult relationship between Neighbourhood and
Strategic Planning. Irrespective of who is sat in No.10 on 8th May, we don’t foresee a
slowdown in the number of legal challenges as more Local and Neighbourhood Plans emerge.
David Bainbridge, Partner
Planning Team
01908 541612
[email protected]
11
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:41 Page 15
However, despite no wholesale reform
currently on the table, there are various
issues that will inevitably encroach on the
planning system. One issue that all
governments, irrespective of party, will
need to grapple with is how to balance the
strategic needs for housing, employment,
and key infrastructure with the local
electorate. Whilst not perhaps a headlinegrabbing campaign issue, the wrong
decision or approach risks upsetting either
the electorate or the industry.
commitment to an old-style ‘regional’ tier
of governance.
Perhaps one of the omissions as we head
towards 7th May is exactly who will be
responsible for coordinating infrastructure.
Will Local Enterprise Partnerships be
given a ‘strategic’ or coordinating role or
will powers over planning really be
devolved, along with cash, to City Regions
as mooted by the Labour Party?
Need to balance
electorate wants
against planning
needs
Localism
Strategic (Right to Grow v Duty
to Cooperate)
Perhaps disappointingly for some, no
party is proposing to rekindle Regional
Planning. The Conservatives remain
committed to the Duty to Cooperate (not a
duty to agree!) with strategic issues being
resolved at the local level. Garden Cities,
for example, must be planned for locally.
The Labour Party has acknowledged that
in some cases, cooperation won’t always
be enough. The ‘Right to Grow’ shifts the
balance of power from those who have the
land, but not the willingness, to those with
the willingness but not the land. Under the
Right to Grow, the Planning Inspectorate
would be tasked as a mediator between
town halls to allocate housing based on
need and to stop ‘home blocker’ councils
from frustrating the growth of their
neighbours.
Meanwhile, perhaps the closest to
acknowledging that a ‘purely bottom-up’
approach will be sufficient are the Liberal
Democrats, albeit with no clear
The role of local authorities appears to
remain a key component of the
Conservatives’ planning approach, with a
further roll out of Neighbourhood Planning
and ‘bottom-up’ planning for housing.
Furthermore, the appeal of UKIP’s
policies in respect of ‘local choice’ is not
going to go unnoticed by many in the
party. In addition to the current
Neighbourhood Planning regime, UKIP are
proposing that locally controversial
schemes that attract the opposition of 5%
or more of local people should be put to
referendum. Whilst we are unsure if this
would be implementable, the principle of a
referendum over some development
proposals is likely to appeal to both the
back benches and many voters alike.
Since 2013, when Roberta
Blackman-Woods mooted the idea that
Neighbourhood Plans should be
compulsory, there has been little to
suggest that any significant changes
would be made to Neighbourhood
Planning under a Labour-led government.
All parties face a
similar planning
dilemma
Bottom-up
approach alone
won’t deliver
much needed
housing
Party
Strategic
Local
Conservative
Encouragement of Garden City projects such as Ebbsfleet
Neighbourhood planning further roll out
Labour
Local Authorities able to use land as equity
Speed up planning for <10 unit schemes
Devolution of powers to local government (not just cities)
Right to Grow
Liberal Democrat 15 year land supply
Recognition of the need for something
in addition to ‘local’ intervention
A purely bottom-up, locally led
approach ‘insufficient’
Garden cities a cornerstone of the plan for house
building, with at least 10 new cities formed if they
achieve power
Green
Reform the system to enable a greater degree
of self-sufficiency to be achieved than present
Constrain the power of the Planning Inspectorate
and give Councils a more proactive role
UKIP
Protection for the Green Belt
Merge Planning and Building Control functions
Planning rules in the NPPF will be changed
to make it easier to build on brownfield sites
Power to block housing, environmental or
transport schemes via referendum
12
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:41 Page 16
Duty to Cooperate
London’s housing targets and the Duty to Cooperate
With the revisions to the
London Plan now formally
adopted, London is required to
meet its increased housing
targets. With space at a
premium, there is added
pressure and expectation for
the Duty to Cooperate to be
rigorously applied and so
deliver a proportion of housing
supply outside of the capital.
Much to the dismay of a number of
London and non-London local planning
authorities, the Inspector’s report on the
Further Alterations to the London Plan
(FALP), published on 15th December
2014, identified that the new housing
targets in the FALP were 6,600 dwellings
per annum short of meeting the
objectively assessed need for market and
affordable housing. London’s prosperity is
likely to continue and higher incomes will
likely translate to stronger demand for
housing and better quality homes.
London’s shortfall in housing supply and
the dispersal of lower income groups to
outside the capital represent a significant
risk to London’s future economic growth.
It is clear that London needs to deliver
more homes but the re-use and further
intensification of brownfield land alone
may not meet the population projections.
Many of these complex sites have poor
infrastructure and are costly to develop.
There is a strong inter-relationship
between London and the surrounding area
as evidenced by commuter patterns.
London’s Green Belt has prevented
unrestricted house building since
implementation in 1955 but the NPPF
recognises that Green Belt boundaries
(and by association Metropolitan Open
Land) can and should be reviewed to take
account of sustainable development – and
London’s long-term economic integrity.
The impact of the looming General
Election has resulted in many LPAs
applying the brakes on Green Belt Review,
as at Mole Valley where a moratorium has
been in place since October 2014.
Increase in annual housing targets 2011 London Plan to 2014 FALP
(LLDC target shown by borough)
barneystringer.wordpress.com
@barneystringer
Annual average housing delivery
2007/8 to 2011/12, from LP Monitoring Report
barneystringer.wordpress.com
@barneystringer
Increase in housing delivery needed to meet draft FALP targets
Comparison with last five years’ delivery
(LLDC target shown by borough)
barneystringer.wordpress.com
@barneystringer
At MIPIM London’s deputy mayor, Sir
Edward Lister, stated that there is no
intention of reviewing the Green Belt
boundaries and that London can meet its
housing demand on its 38 priority areas by
increasing development density.
Irrespective of the stalled Green Belt
Review process there remains the
requirement for neighbouring authorities to
absorb London’s growth and as such
some Boroughs are seeing a significant
increase in their annual housing targets:
Source: https://barneystringer.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/london-housing-targets/
13
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:41 Page 17
To Boris Johnson’s, and to an extent,
some London Boroughs’ relief, the
Inspector also said that the review “may, in
the absence of a wider regional strategy
to assess the options for growth and to
plan and co-ordinate that growth, include
engaging local planning authorities beyond
the Greater London Authority’s boundaries
in discussions regarding the evolution of
our capital city”.
This approach has also been endorsed by
the Government – in a letter to London
Mayor Boris Johnson this February, the
planning minister Brandon Lewis
welcomed the Mayor’s commitment to
work closely with local authorities and
other partners in the areas outside London
as part of the full-scale review of the
London Plan. Mr Lewis also stressed that
the Green Belt should be given the highest
protection in the planning system and is
an environmental constraint, which may
impact on the ability of authorities to meet
their housing need.
With space at a premium in the capital and
limited scope to expand due to Green Belt
restrictions, there undoubtedly will be
instances where cooperation with nonLondon LPAs will be required for sufficient
delivery of housing numbers. This,
however, is unlikely to be so easily
forthcoming from some, as last November,
in the same month that Boris Johnson
announced a summit with Home Counties
Council leaders to discuss cooperating on
managing the capital’s housing growth,
Home Counties authorities wrote to the
Mayor to protest about suggestions in his
draft infrastructure plan for new housing
outside of London.
The Councils however, when preparing
their Local Plans, will have no choice but
to prepare those plans in accordance with
the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ requirement, as
set out at paragraph 182 of the NPPF:
The Local Plan will be examined by an
independent inspector whose role is to
assess whether the plan has been
prepared in accordance with the Duty to
Cooperate, legal and procedural
requirements, and whether it is sound.
A local planning authority should submit a
plan for examination which it considers is
‘sound’ – namely that it is:
Justified – the plan should be the most
appropriate strategy, when considered
against the reasonable alternatives, based
on proportionate evidence;
Effective – the plan should be delivered
over its period and based on effective joint
working on cross-boundary strategic
priorities; and
Consistent with national policy – the plan
should enable the delivery of sustainable
development in accordance with the
policies in the Framework.
The Duty to Cooperate is a legal duty
placed on LPAs in preparing their Local
Plans; however, the (national) Planning
Policy Guidance (PPG) sets out that it is
not a duty to agree. LPAs must submit
evidence in advance of public examination
showing how the LPA has complied with
the duty or it cannot proceed further in
examination. The PPG further notes that if
another authority will not cooperate then
they need to submit comprehensive and
robust evidence of the efforts they have
made to cooperate and any outcomes
achieved as this will be thoroughly tested
at the examination.
The FALP’s Inspector considered that the
Mayor needs to explore options beyond
the Plan’s current philosophy with other
Greater London Authorities. Bidwells has
spoken to the London Boroughs of Barnet,
Kingston, Enfield and Havering to see how
they are looking to accommodate their
new housing targets. Interestingly
Kingston, whilst it considers the FALP
housing targets are deliverable within the
Borough, is the only one to have actively
engaged with the Duty to Cooperate,
having just commissioned a SHMA in
conjunction with three neighbouring
Boroughs in Surrey (Elmbridge, Epsom &
Ewell, and Mole Valley). Barnet and
Havering, whilst currently achieving their
five year land supply, are yet to assess this
against the revised FALP targets. Barnet is
unwilling to consider working with a nonLondon authority and Havering would not
consider working with any other authority.
Enfield, whilst not currently meeting its five
year supply, considers it can meet its
revised target within the Borough and not
engage with any others.
The Duty to Cooperate is therefore not
being endorsed by some London
Boroughs, a position shared by some nonLondon Authorities as well. Spelthorne
Borough Council, for example, considers
there to have been no engagement or
discussion with respect to the housing
targets and what happens to London’s
unmet need. Many non-London LPAs
consider the Mayor has pre-determined
the FALP’s position with respect to
housing targets without engaging local
authorities outside London. Many
neighbouring authorities take the stance
that if the London SHMA 2013 considers
London as a single housing market area
then it is required to meet such need
within the London Plan boundary. Further
afield but within the A12 growth corridor,
Chelmsford City Council stated in its
representations to the FALP’s further
alterations that taking further growth from
London “would be completely
unacceptable”. Nevertheless, Chelmsford
does take internal migration into its
projections which will include London’s
overspill. As with many neighbouring
authorities, Chelmsford has called for a
strategic Green Belt Review within the
Greater London built-up area to meet its
housing needs but Sir Edward Lister would
seem to have ruled this out.
Fundamentally, there is no mechanism as
to how the 6,600 unit p.a. shortfall will be
met, particularly in the later stages of the
Plan period. The reality is that housing
provision is cross-boundary and so raises
significant infrastructure issues for the
South East which cannot be left to
individual London Boroughs to ‘muddle
through’. Nor can we rely solely on the
‘densification’ and delivery of large and
complex surplus industrial sites to meet
London’s burgeoning housing demand.
The Duty to Cooperate on cross-boundary
strategic priorities remains on the agenda,
for now, but post-election its effectiveness
to date has at best been patchy and so
must be a target for review.
Positively prepared – the plan should be
based on a strategy which seeks to meet
objectively assessed development and
infrastructure requirements, including
unmet requirements from neighbouring
authorities where it is reasonable to do so
and consistent with achieving sustainable
development;
Matt Richards, Partner
Planning Team
020 3837 9884
Ray Houghton, Partner
Planning Team
01245 505083
[email protected]
[email protected]
14
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:41 Page 18
Contacts and research publications
National
Recent research publications
Mike Derbyshire
Head of Planning
07747 564122
[email protected]
Scan the code for a digital copy of the relevant publication.
Cambridge
Marcia Whitehead
01223 559305
[email protected]
Rob Hopwood
01223 559207
[email protected]
Chelmsford
Andrew Blackwell
01245 505080
[email protected]
London
Anna Rogers
0207 493 3043
[email protected]
Milton Keynes, Oxford
David Bainbridge
01908 541612
[email protected]
Norwich
Rebecca Rejzek
01603 229409
[email protected]
St Albans
Richard Butler
01727 223906
[email protected]
Scotland
Andrew Wood
01738 494108
[email protected]
Urban Design
Johnny Clayton
01223 559800
[email protected]
Media contacts
Julie Bushell
01223 559331
[email protected]
Nicola Walker
01223 559393
[email protected]
© Copyright Bidwells LLP 2015
Before taking any action based on this document you should consult Bidwells LLP to ensure
that it is appropriate to your circumstances. Bidwells LLP are in no way responsible for any
views expressed within this document by third parties. We may hold your name on our
database unless you instruct us otherwise. If you require this document in an alternative
format please contact the Marketing Department on 01223 841841. Bidwells LLP is a
limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales (registered number OC344553).
Registered head office is Bidwell House, Trumpington Road, Cambridge CB2 9LD, where a
list of members is available for inspection. Where used the term ‘partner’ refers to a
member of Bidwells LLP or an employee who is a senior professional. It does not imply that
Bidwells LLP is a general partnership under the Partnership Act 1890.
15
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:41 Page 19
Planning spring 2015b_Layout 1 14/04/2015 12:41 Page 20
Bidwells
@Bidwells
bidwells.co.uk
Cert No 8542
ISO 9001, ISO 14001