Overview
The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (the Bill) includes substantial planning reforms, sets out the framework for the levelling up missions and introduces a range of devolution measures. This crucial Bill has serious implications for the planning system, tackling inequality, supporting recovery from the pandemic, and responding to climate change.
The Bill brings together proposals from both the Levelling Up White Paper and the ‘Planning for the Future’ White Paper (Planning White Paper). Whilst some of the reforms in the Planning White Paper have not been taken forward, the Bill has retained some of these proposals, including the Infrastructure Levy provisions and the simplification of Local Plans, but has also brought in fresh changes, such as new National Development Management Policies and a diminished role for the London Plan.
London Councils believes:
- The Bill retains several Planning White Paper proposals which are of major concern, in particular the Infrastructure Levy and the simplification of Local Plans.
- New changes in the Bill include greater centralisation of planning policy nationally, which London Councils does not support because such policy should be determined locally as far as possible, to reflect local circumstances.
- Provisions to diminish the London Plan will severely weaken the ability of London government to meet the development needs of the capital.
- Proposed increases in planning fees are broadly welcomed, subject to establishing whether this would fully meet the cost of local planning services as a prerequisite for an exploration with boroughs of the ‘better performance’ condition.
- The levelling up missions may overlook the large variations within the capital in areas such as pay, employment and productivity, and should be measured by appropriate social and economic indices.
- The devolution proposals are focused towards areas outside of London, with an emphasis on mayoral authorities and do not recognise London’s unique governance arrangements.
Key strategic issues
London Councils has identified the following key strategic issues arising from the Bill:
Planning issues
1. The retention of Planning White Paper proposals for simplified Local Plans remains a major concern, as this would weaken local planning authorities, constrain the scope of Local Plans and impose an unrealistic 30-month deadline for their production. These changes would severely undermine the principle of local decision making in relation to the planning process and for driving local priorities forward, for example, the standardisation of Local Plan targets nationally would risk undermining boroughs’ local ambition and innovation in tackling climate change.
2. The retention of proposals for an Infrastructure Levy (IL) remains a major concern, given the risks this presents, including:
(a) the loss of gains being made under the existing section 106 arrangements, in particular the successful delivery of affordable housing, including the supply of new low carbon homes, and the funding of successful employment initiatives (such as apprenticeships, skills development and supporting young people into employment). It will be important to ensure that these benefits are not lost (i.e. maintained at current levels as a minimum) as a result of changes proposed in the Bill.
(b)the risk of increased financial exposure for boroughs, for example, due to IL payments being made on completion rather than at application stage
(c) the risk that the flexibility recently introduced for how IL payments can be used by local authorities, may, as a result of other financial pressures, divert the funding needed to deliver development schemes. London Councils is particularly concerned about the loss of affordable housing, for which there is an acute shortage.
3. Recent amendments for Community Land Auction Pilots which, if progressed, would need to test whether this initiative genuinely offers benefits for local authorities and the degree to which it would risk adding complexity and uncertainty, delaying development.
4. Recent amendments which introduce Street Vote Development Orders raise serious concerns, including the practicalities of operating the system. These concerns include the risk of disputes, the lack of clarity over additional funding for councils and the high degree of control retained by the Secretary of State. In particular, we would want to see effective local safeguards over the establishment of appropriate voting thresholds.
5. The proposed introduction of new National Development Management Policies (NDMPs) represents greater centralisation of planning policy nationally and the disenfranchisement of local communities, contrary to the stated objective of the Bill to devolve powers locally.
6. Proposals in the Bill to diminish the scope and prominence of the London Plan risks severely undermining the ability of London government to meet the development needs of the capital, including our collective response to climate change and our successes in delivering affordable housing.
7. The government’s proposals in a policy paper accompanying the Bill to increase planning fees by 35% for major schemes and 25% for minor schemes (subject to consultation) are long overdue and broadly welcomed. However, it will be important to establish whether the proposed increases fully cover the cost of local planning services, which should be conducted in full consultation with boroughs. Any expectations of “better performance” can only be met if planning services are adequately resourced. In principle we would support the withdrawn amendment NC36 from the Bill’s passage in the House of Commons, which would have allowed local planning authorities to vary planning fees to cover their costs related to planning, including the employment of qualified planners.
8. We broadly welcome provisions in the Bill which seek to:
(a)increase build out by the introduction of Development Progress Reports and blocking applications on sites where earlier permissions have not been implemented.
(b)improve compulsory purchase arrangements, although we contend that ‘hope value’ should be fully excluded from the process in order to ensure that such arrangements take into account existing land value and make the compulsory purchase process realistically affordable for local authorities to utilise.
(c)introduce new urban Development Corporations.
However, we consider that too many powers are unnecessarily retained by Secretary of State and that all these provisions could be improved in consultation with local planning authorities, which we call on the government to initiate.
9. We support recent amendments introducing the registration of short-term rental properties given the urgent need to regulate this sector. The proposed scheme should be strengthened by the inclusion of compulsory host registration, punitive fines for noncompliance and legislated data sharing duties on short-term let platforms.
10. Whilst we support the principle of the letting by local authorities of vacant high street premises, we are concerned that councils will not have the resources to administer the complex procedures which have been proposed.
11. We note provisions in the Bill which seek to improve environmental outcomes, however, we need to better understand the proposed Environmental Outcome Reports and how the accompanying outcome targets will be set and delivered, as this is unclear.
12. The absence of provisions to end or curtail Permitted Development Rights is a major concern, because Permitted Development Rights do not require the provision of affordable housing and have led to the creation of many low-quality homes in unsuitable locations, with inadequate amenity space and poor energy efficiency (e.g. overheating in homes created from former office blocks).
Levelling up and devolution issues
1. In many of the 12 levelling up missions proposed, such as serious crime and home ownership, London performs worse than other UK regions. Depending on the matrix used, the missions may overlook the large variations within the capital in areas such as pay, employment and productivity. London Councils contends that the missions should be measured by appropriate social and economic indices, which would better identify these inequalities within London.
2. London Councils continues to make the case for a fair allocation of resources and powers to enable the capital to deliver the missions’ objectives. Given the many inequalities and different level of infrastructure across London, the capital needs support to level up too.
3. Inclusive economic growth across all towns and cities is vital to achieving the levelling up missions. Growth in London creates demand for goods and services from other parts of the UK and is often the ‘shop window’ for goods and services produced across Britain, it is therefore essential for London to continue competing successfully as a global city.
4. The devolution proposals are focused towards areas outside London, with an emphasis on mayoral authorities, and do not recognise the unique governance arrangements in London. London Councils continues to make the case for further devolution to London and that boroughs should have a central role in this, alongside the Mayor.
5. The emphasis in the missions on home ownership overlooks the capital’s continued need for social housing, given the city’s affordability issues and acute levels of homelessness.
6. The planning and levelling up provisions in the Bill are not effectively coordinated. The planning changes represent a missed opportunity to maintain and strengthen the planning system in England, which would then be better placed to support delivery of the 12 missions.
