London Councils has concerns about the substantial planning changes in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. Whilst the Bill includes some positive provisions in relation to increasing build out rates, compulsory purchase and urban development corporations, we are concerned that other major aspects of the Bill will result in reduced affordable housing delivery and weakened local control over planning policy.
We are concerned that the Bill would:
- Centralise planning policy nationally, through the introduction of National Development Management Policies (NDMPs);
- Restrict the scope of Local Plans, leading to more standardisation and less scope for innovation and local decision making to meet community needs;
- Put the delivery of affordable housing at risk, through the introduction of the Infrastructure Levy (IL). Our preferred approach would be for the IL provisions to be dropped, in favour of improvements to the current system of section 106 agreements, which is successfully delivering increasing levels of affordable housing in London.
- Undermine the ability of London government to manage development in the capital and meet the needs of our communities;
- Introduce resource intensive new initiatives, such as street votes, at a time when local authority planning services are severely under-resourced and the government’s proposals to increase planning fees are delayed.
We have indicated below the key amendments we are urging Peers to support, with a brief summary of why we feel the changes proposed are important.
Amendment 187, Tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This amendment would place limits on the primacy of national development management policies over the development plan where a Combined County Authority had been handed planning, highways, environmental powers and at least one function of another public body under a devolution deal, in areas covered by a joint spatial development strategy and in Greater London.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as locally determined development plans, which reflect local needs, should have primacy over national development management policies.
Amendment 190, Tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This amendment states that an national development management policy should set minimum standards rather than absolute standards.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it would allow councils to set and maintain local targets which are more ambitious than nationally set targets, for example, in relation to climate change.
Amendment 192, Tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This amendment aims to find out from the government whether the locally determined development plan will take precedence over the national development management policy if there is a conflict between them.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this probing amendment as locally determined development plans, which reflect local needs, should have primacy over national development management policies. It would be useful to understand the government’s thinking on this.
Amendment 196, Tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This amendment aims to find out from the government whether there will be a strategy for public consultation on and parliamentary scrutiny of national development management policies once the bill has been passed.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this probing amendment as national development management policies, like local development plans, should be subject to public consultation and democratic scrutiny.
Amendment 248, Tabled by Lord Young of Cookham
Member’s Explanatory Statement
The outcome of a street vote may conflict with the development plan. The amendment provides guidance on how to resolve this conflict.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as an important means of ensuring that the street vote proposals will be in conformity with the local development plan, which seeks to meet the needs of the wider community.
Amendment 250, Tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This amendment aims to find out from government what minimum level of support is required for a street vote referendum to take place.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this probing amendment as it addresses one of our major concerns over street votes, which relates to the practicalities of how the voting system can be fairly operated and the levels of local support that would be required to enact the outcome of a street vote.
Amendment 267, Tabled by Lord Young of Cookham
Member’s Explanatory Statement
The amendment would allow local authorities to develop a planning fees schedule that would enable the full costs of delivering its development management services, including the processing of planning applications, to be recovered.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it would provide a mechanism by which local authorities could charge planning fees which cover the cost of the service provided, help raise performance and address resourcing/capacity deficits within council planning departments.
Amendment 287, Tabled by Baroness Pinnock
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This new Clause would allow local authorities to set the fees for planning applications, in order that the cost of determining an application is reflected by the fee charged.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as this would allow local authorities to set their own planning fees to meet the cost of the service provided, help raise performance and address resourcing/capacity deficits within council planning departments.
Amendment 317, Tabled by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This means that the Secretary of State may by regulations arrange pilot schemes in relation to the infrastructure Levy.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it would be essential to pilot the Infrastructure Levy scheme before considering a national roll-out, given the complexities, risks and serious implications identified for the scheme (particularly in relation to the potentially detrimental impact on affordable housing supply and infrastructure investment).
Amendment 321, Tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This amendment would add further information on the purpose of the infrastructure levy, in particular to enable local authorities to raise money from developments to fund infrastructure, while continuing to allow planning obligations under section 106 to be used to provide affordable housing.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it would allow the retention of the current section 106 arrangements for the delivery of affordable housing, which have successfully delivered increasing levels of affordable housing in London.
Amendment 326, Tabled by Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This amendment would ensure IL regulations introduce a mechanism for the delivery of onsite affordable housing as an in-kind levy payment.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it provides a mechanism to ensure the delivery of on-site affordable housing, which is essential to meeting housing need within an area.
Amendment 331, Tabled by Baroness Pinnock
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This amendment would enable Infrastructure Levy charging authorities to require a developer to pay their full IL liability, or for infrastructure funded by IL associated with a development to be built, before development may commence. And for developers to be required, at the request of the authority to provide money for remedial work.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it would remove the additional financial risk to local authorities posed by the payment of IL receipts on completion, rather than at application stage. It would also create greater certainty for developers.
Amendment 333, Tabled by Lord Etherton
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This amendment would require the rates of IL to be set at a level which, over a period of three years, will, in conjunction with other powers of the planning authority (such as section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) deliver the necessary amount of affordable housing.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it would require the setting of IL rates likely to provide not less than the amount of affordable housing specified in a local authority’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment, over a 3 year period.
Amendment 334, Tabled by Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This amendment would strengthen the requirement for local planning authorities to set IL rates at a level which would not result in a loss of affordable housing.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it would strengthen the requirement for affordable housing delivered via IL to at least match previous rates of delivery and meet the level of need identified in local development plan.
Amendment 344, Tabled by Lord Best
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This and another amendment in the name of Lord Best tie the application of the Infrastructure Levy to the level of affordable housing requirement identified in the local development plan.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it would help ensure that the housing delivered via the IL would meet the requirement identified in the local development plan.
Amendment 350, Tabled by Lord Best
Member’s Explanatory Statement
This and another amendment in the name of Lord Best tie the application of the Infrastructure Levy to the level of affordable housing requirement identified in the local development plan.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it provides a minimum 75% allocation of IL to meet the requirement for affordable housing identified in the local development plan.
