London Councils has previously raised concerns about the substantial planning changes in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill at Committee Stage and 2nd Reading, in particular the national centralisation of planning policy and introduction of the Infrastructure Levy.
We strongly oppose the Infrastructure Levy in particular, because it presents major risks, including:
- Affordable housing supply being reduced, undermining efforts to reduce homelessness and meet housing need
- Enabling infrastructure funded by local authorities and others being cut back, as a result of levy receipts being paid on scheme completion rather than at application stage, placing unreasonable and unrealistic expectations on councils to borrow upfront to cover project costs.
- Development across the country being delayed or curtailed, due to the scale and complexity of the radical changes being proposed.
We have indicated below the key amendments that have been tabled as of Thursday 6 July which we are urging Peers to support, with a brief summary of why we feel the changes proposed are important.
Amendment 68, Tabled by Baroness Pinnock
Member's Explanatory Statement
A statement has not been provided, but the amendment text reads ‘Leave out Clause 129’, which would remove Infrastructure Levy proposals from the Bill.
London Councils view
London Councils strongly supports this amendment as, together with Baroness Pinnock’s related amendment below to leave out Schedule 12, this would delete the Infrastructure Levy proposals. London Councils recently signed a joint letter to the Secretary of State (dated 9 June 2023) with 30 other organisations from across the housing, planning and local government sectors calling on the government to not proceed with the Infrastructure Levy, but instead to improve the current section 106/CIL system. The Infrastructure Levy proposals include serious risks to the supply of affordable housing, the funding of infrastructure by local authorities and others and the delivery of future development across the country.
Amendment 71, Tabled by Lord Best
Member's Explanatory Statement
This amendment inserts additional text in Schedule 12, which aims to ensure levels of affordable housing delivery.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment, which has cross-party support, as it provides mechanisms to ensure that the level of affordable housing delivered matches the level identified in the Local Development Plan and delivery is maintained at a level that is equal to or exceeds the level of affordable housing previously delivered in an area. We consider this amendment is essential in order to prevent a reduction in affordable housing supply as a result of the Infrastructure Levy, which is a major concern, as tackling homelessness and meeting housing need is a growing problem nationally and an acute crisis in London, which accounts for two thirds of homelessness in England.
Amendment 90, Tabled by Baroness Pinnock
Member's Explanatory Statement
A statement has not been provided, but the amendment text reads ‘Leave out Schedule 12’, which would remove Infrastructure Levy proposals from the Bill.
London Councils view
London Councils strongly supports this amendment as, together with Baroness Pinnock’s related amendment above to leave out clause 129, this would delete the Infrastructure Levy proposals. London Councils recently signed a joint letter to the Secretary of State (dated 9 June 2023) with 30 other organisations from across the housing, planning and local government sectors calling on the government to not proceed with the Infrastructure Levy, but instead to improve the current section 106/CIL system. The Infrastructure Levy proposals include serious risks to the supply of affordable housing, the funding of infrastructure by local authorities and others and the delivery of future development across the country.
Amendment 188, Tabled by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
Member's Explanatory Statement
This means that a Minister must outline the position of the National Development Management Policies within the planning hierarchy and its relationship with other planning documents.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment because the effect would be to create clarity regarding the relative weight of National Development Management Policies (NDMP) directed from central government. We are concerned that the proposed NDMPs would centralise planning policy nationally, undermining Local Plans and the management of development by Local Planning Authorities, who are best placed to determine planning decisions to meet the needs of their communities.
Amendment 190, Tabled by Baroness Thornhill
Member's Explanatory Statement
This amendment stipulates the process for the Secretary of State to designate and review a National Development Management Policy including minimum public consultation requirements and a process of parliamentary scrutiny based on processes set out in the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) for designating National Policy Statements.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it provides a clear process for designating and reviewing NDMPs, including public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, which is important to ensure good policy making. This is particularly important given the risk that NDMPs would centralise planning policy nationally, when Local Plans and planning decisions are best made by Local Planning Authorities to meet the needs of their areas.
Amendment 200, Tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member's Explanatory Statement
This amendment aims to reinstate provisions for housing targets.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it reinstates provisions for housing targets and, in our view, the National Planning Policy Framework and associated guidance should require development to meet objectively assessed local housing need. However, we have major concerns regarding the standard method as currently framed, for example due to its reliance on out of date data, together with the inequitable and unrealistic 35% uplift of targets for London and other urban centres, in combination with the unreasonable application of Housing Delivery Test sanctions in those areas.
Amendment 201, Tabled by Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member's Explanatory Statement
This amendment means that the government must update the definition of affordable housing following a consultation.
London Councils view
London Councils supports this amendment as it would provide a mechanism, including a consultation, to improve the definition of affordable housing within the National Planning Policy Framework. The mechanism proposed in the amendment would provide an opportunity through a national consultation to review whether the definition could be improved, for example, to better deliver sufficient genuinely affordable homes to meet local housing needs, for example tackling homelessness, in areas across the country.
Amendment 235, 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 it would enable Local Planning Authorities to set planning fees locally, thereby allowing the full cost of the service to be recovered. In its recent consultation on planning fees, the government estimated the funding shortfall for the planning application (development management) service in England as being £225 million (approximately 33%). Whilst the government’s proposed increase in planning fees is welcomed, the government’s consultation document recognises that this increase would not fully meet the cost of local planning services. This amendment would allow this situation to be corrected.
