Written evidence submitted by Oneill Homer [FPS 111]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oneill Homer is a professional planning consultancy specialising in neighbourhood planning and masterplanning. We work for local communities and developers to plan, design and deliver development through neighbourhood plans, masterplans and regeneration schemes. We are the market leader in providing independent professional planning support to Town and Parish Councils and Neighbourhood Forums preparing neighbourhood plans. Since 2012, we have helped 150 neighbourhood plan projects across 47 different local planning authority areas from Dorset to Norfolk and from Worcestershire to Sussex, including London. We have also delivered a significant number of brownfield and urban regeneration projects.

We support the simplification of the planning process which White Paper aspires to, but believe it falls short in some critical areas that could potentially make the system more complicated than it already is.

For this reason, our submission focuses on three questions from the Committee's Terms of Reference:

Question 1. Is the current planning system working as it should do? What changes might need to be made? Are the Government’s proposals the right approach?

Question 4. What approach should be used to determine the housing need and requirements of a local authority

Question 5. What is the best approach to ensure public engagement in the planning system?

Our submission provides a composite response to these questions on how we think a new planning system could work. It is based on our collective experience in the English planning system over the last 40 years and is followed by detailed information and data in respect of the role of neighbourhood planning in the new system, in particular to ensure public engagement with, but more significantly the proactive involvement of, local communities in the planning system.

THE PROBLEMS TO SOLVE

We, and many others it seems, think that the White Paper has wrongly framed the problems to solve. It has focused on speed of plan and decision making but has sought to resolve them within a system that remains largely unchanged. We have therefore reframed the problems and our response to them around their root causes:

• Plan making is too slow and over-burdened with unnecessary evidence demands, and therefore offers too little incentive to either developers to promote land through it or to encourage community engagement
• Plan making decisions are too rarely, genuinely vision driven and are too often instead, the accumulation of incremental, tactical land use (housing) site allocations
• Development management is also too slow and too inconsistent as it attempts to redress the weaknesses of plan making
• Local community engagement with the system is weak throughout
• At each level, there is too much ambiguity and discretion in agreeing how national policy goals are translated through spatial plans into local policy and planning decisions

THE SOLUTIONS

We agree with the White Paper in that there needs to be a radical overhaul of the planning system. But we disagree with some of its solutions which are still bound up in the same approach to plan making that has driven the system for the last twenty years or more.

Fundamental to our proposals is establishing a clearer, firmer understanding between the Government (MHCLG), Local Planning Authorities (LPA), and communities as to what is required as policy outcomes. It comprises three tiers:

1.       From Government to LPA – a Strategic Planning Brief setting out the required outcomes.

2.       From LPA to Community – a Spatial Statement (replacing Local Plans) to translate the Strategic Planning Brief into a Local Planning Brief for each locality in its area.

3.       From Community to Implementation – a Neighbourhood Plan to translate the Local Planning Brief into planning permissions and infrastructure investment.

To make this work, the following paper includes six proposals that are inter-dependent and mutually reinforcing in delivering the benefits of a new system for plan making, through development management to infrastructure funding. We explain in detail how we think each proposal would work in the attached think piece; HOW THE NEW PLANNING SYSTEM CAN WORK BETTER FOR ALL.

This paper is supported by a research note: WHY SHOULD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING BE RETAINED IN THE REFORMED PLANNING SYSTEM? which has been prepared to fill the current gap in information and provide key neighbourhood planning data to support this response.

CONCLUSION

On the face of it, the White Paper presents a radical reworking of the current system, but it leaves too many parts of the current system unaltered, reducing the chances of its proposed outcomes being achieved.

We have taken some of its radical components – top down housing targets and ‘zoning’ – and set them within a much simpler system, for the benefit of everyone with a stake in its success. Almost every part of our proposed simplified system has been tried and tested in one way or another over many years. But these tried and tested parts haven’t been assembled in the proper way to make the system both effective and efficient. Worse, every attempt to improve and simplify the planning system has either sought to address the wrong causes or to deal with symptoms alone.

Simplicity is the key. Stripping away the comfort blankets of process and evidence that have too often led to procrastination and rank bad planning will, we think, be welcomed by those on whom we rely to deliver sustainable development, and by the communities that have to live with its results.

October 2020

This is a think piece on how we think a new planning system could work. It takes forward many of what we believe to be sound proposals in the Planning White Paper but rearranges some of them, adds missing pieces and discards others. We submit it to MHCLG as part of our response to the White Paper.

Our aim is simplicity, of the kind the White Paper aspires to but falls short of in some critical areas that might actually make the system more complicated than it is already. It is based on the collective experience of our small team in the English planning system over the last 40 years. We have been development promoters, plan makers, development managers and community advocates.

It is especially driven by what we have seen happen in an increasing number of neighbourhood plans over the last eight years. They have proven that it is possible to deliver spatially creative, technically robust policies and proposals that are well-supported by local communities and developers, in a fraction of the time and cost of any other form of development plan.

The White Paper has forced us to go back to the founding principles of why everyone has a stake in the planning system. Our proposals for a new system are therefore based on following insights:

• The plan led system is fundamental to delivering sustainable development
• Development that comes forward outside that system too often only progresses sustainable development by accident rather than design
• In practice, the options for planning genuine sustainable development in the vast majority of settlements are few, although the current system assumes they are almost infinite, hence its insatiable appetite for evidence
• Investors in development crave certainty and the majority would deliver better outcomes if others didn’t find it so easy to deliver poor outcomes
• The successful operation of the plan led system is dependent on effective and efficient plan making and on consistent development management and enforcement
• The credibility and quality of the plan led system is dependent on genuine community engagement, both at the plan making and development management stages
• Strategic, sub-regional spatial planning is too remote and technical for local people to engage in and consultation at this scale is tokenism
• The closer decision making is to the community, the more it will engage and the more value that engagement will add to the outcome
• Meeting housing needs is a national policy objective and the Government is the most suitable, democratically elected, body to set out how needs should be met across the country in a consistent and transparent way that can be held to account for its decisions
• Regional spatial planning has been tried and has failed, but structure plans at the county/Unitary level and some joint spatial plans have succeeded and provide the right level at which strategic, sustainable development policy should be formulated
• Neighbourhood planning has succeeded in spatial planning at the town, village and inner urban level by defining the equivalent of Growth, Renewal and Protected Areas, by identifying infrastructure needs and by using design codes and Orders to de-risk development
• Neighbourhood planning has proven the hypothesis of the 2010 Open Source Planning Green Paper that if given the power to determine their vision and how their place should evolve, local communities will be positive about development

There are many symptoms of failure, but we think these four are the most damning, and are all caused by a fundamental failure in the plan making part of the system:

• Too many houses built in the wrong places and of a poor quality
• Opportunities are lost to invest in quality, timely infrastructure
• Too many communities feel disenfranchised by the planning system
• It just doesn’t seem up to the job of tackling the major challenges presented by the 21st century

We, and many others it seems, think that the White Paper has wrongly framed the problems to solve. It has focused on speed of plan and decision making but has sought to resolve them within much of the same system components as now. We have therefore reframed the problems around their root causes:

• Plan making is too slow and over-burdened with unnecessary evidence demands, and therefore offers too little incentive to either developers to promote land through it or to encourage community engagement
• Plan making decisions are too rarely, genuinely vision driven and are too often instead, the accumulation of incremental, tactical land use (housing) site allocations
• Development management is also too slow and too inconsistent as it attempts to redress the weaknesses of plan making
• Local community engagement with the system is weak throughout
• At each level, there is too much ambiguity and discretion in agreeing how national policy goals are translated through spatial plans into local policy and planning decisions

We agree with the White Paper in that there needs to be a radical overhaul of the planning system. But we disagree with some of its solutions, which are still bound in the same frame of mind for plan making of the last twenty years or more.

Fundamental to our proposals is establishing a clearer, firmer understanding between the Government (MHCLG), Local Planning Authorities (LPA) and communities as to what are required as policy outcomes. It comprises three tiers:

4.       From Government to LPA – a Strategic Planning Brief to set out the required outcomes

5.       From LPA to Community – a Spatial Statement (replacing Local Plans) to translate the Strategic Planning Brief into a Local Planning Brief for each locality in its area

6.       From Community to Implementation – a Neighbourhood Plan to translate the Local Planning Brief into planning permissions and infrastructure investment

To make this work, we make six proposals that are inter-dependent and mutually reinforcing in delivering the benefits of our new system from plan making, through development management to infrastructure funding.

Proposal 1: Strategic Planning Brief

We agree that a very significant burden on the cost and time of the current plan making system is the process of agreeing local housing supply targets. This can and should be done away with and replaced as proposed with the Government providing each LPA with a housing target. However, in doing so, it can and should provide that target within a wider brief to acknowledge the relevant growth opportunities and constraints and to explain how the Government considers the brief fits into a context wider than the LPA area.

We see it working like this:

• The Government provides each LPA with a Strategic Planning Brief that contains a fixed housing target for a ten year period and any other relevant strategic direction that it must take into account in planning to meet that target (including the assumptions on which the target has been based, e.g. Class E land needs, affordable housing, brownfield land redevelopment, some release of Green Belt, provision made for a new settlement as part of a national scale initiative like the Ox-MK-Cam Arc)
• Where Government considers it appropriate, or where it has been requested by LPAs, the Strategic Planning Brief is provided to a cluster of LPAs that have agreed to work together
• The Strategic Planning Brief must be translated into a Spatial Statement to be adopted within 30 months of receipt by the LPA(s) (or 42 months as per the White Paper)
• The Government issues an updated Strategic Planning Brief to the LPA(s) every five years or sooner if it considers an earlier review of the Spatial Statement is warranted

Proposal 2: Spatial Statements

On receipt of the Brief, each LPA, or group of LPAs, then needs to translate it into place-specific briefs to direct local spatial planning decisions. We agree that the vast majority of development management policies can be expressed at a national level and that the focus at this spatial scale should be on the essentials of planning for growth, renewal and protection across an LPA area.

We disagree that Local Plans are best placed to perform this task; the White Paper must be more radical and go further. If greater certainty and less discretion is desired in development management, with less public involvement, then it is critical that community engagement is broadened and deepened at the plan making stage. This is what MHCLG says it wants but the circle cannot be squared without a redistribution of plan making responsibility that plays to the strengths of the parties.

Neighbourhood plans have set the benchmark for effective community engagement in plan making. They have demonstrated that making difficult trade-offs between different policy objectives to determine how places grow, renew and consolidate is best achieved at a settlement or urban area level.

In all but the smallest of primarily urban LPA areas, making trade-offs with this kind of community engagement is simply not possible. In which case, as recommended by the Local Plan Expert Group (LPEG), the focus should be on tackling only strategic, spatial matters at this level. This cannot and should not be the remit of a neighbourhood plan; it is the role of the LPA to determine where and how the outcomes of its Strategic Planning Brief should be delivered at the local level.

But, we do not think this is the right scale to make proposals for growth, renewal or protection (beyond national designations). That should be the job of neighbourhood plans and in doing so, it would remove the too frequent duplication of effort, complexity, confusion and frustration that current exists in too many places between Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans.

To make an effective break with the history of Local Plans, the provisions for which should be removed, we think that each LPA should do this job instead using a Spatial Statement, which has a very specific purpose.

We see this working as follows:

• LPAs adopt the Spatial Statement to cover a ten-year period and roll it forward every five years on receipt of a revised Strategic Planning Brief
• The Statement comprises only a spatial vision for the area that clearly expresses the role that each settlement (or urban zone in larger towns and cities) will play in achieving that vision in respect of housing and commercial growth, taking into account strategic-level constraints (e.g. landscape gaps, heritage), articulated in the form of a Local Planning Brief for each settlement/urban zone
• The Statement also includes a Key Diagram illustrating the spatial vision but no Policies Map
• The Statement will not contain policies, nor allocate land uses or contain any development management policies but, in Green Belt areas, it will identify where the Green Belt may be modified in one or more Local Planning Briefs
• The spatial vision is primarily informed by a new-style of settlement hierarchy/urban zone Spatial Analysis Study examining the potential for the settlement/zone to grow to reach its optimum size and purpose (relative to its neighbours) or to move up (or down) the hierarchy, taking into account both opportunity and constraint
• In addition to the Spatial Analysis Study, the Statement will only require the following evidence base:
• Strategic environmental capacity assessment (inc. flood risk, biodiversity, landscape, heritage) – as per LPEG
• Demographic assessment (population, heath, housing stock etc)
• Strategic commercial assessment (strategic analysis of town centre, employment and other commercial issues)
• Strategic sustainable travel assessment (strategic modelling by all modes plus Local Travel Plan provisions as relevant)
• Infrastructure assessment (by settlement/Zone)
• The Statement must explain how its spatial vision is considered sustainable having considered other potential options and how it has taken into account any relevant international policy requirements
• Although no parallel SA/SEA will be necessary, a screening for effects on international habitats (via the current HRA Regs or a future UK equivalent) will be necessary and is carried out at this stage with a subsequent Appropriate Assessment (or equivalent) to determine how Local Planning Briefs should make provision for any necessary mitigation measures
• The Statement must also explain how it has taken into account national planning policy, national infrastructure projects and representations made during its preparation and it must set out the nature of the exercises used to engage and consult on its proposals
• In the absence of a Strategic Planning Brief covering more than one LPA area, LPAs may still choose to collaborate on their Statements and plan for mutual dependencies between their spatial visions and one or more Local Planning Briefs where considered appropriate, provided their respective Statements are adopted within the deadlines
• The LPA must engage with local communities and other stakeholders at the outset, inviting views on the potential role that each settlement/zone may play in achieving sustainable development in the LPA area
• The LPA must publish its draft Spatial Vision for consultation and take into account representations made in preparing its draft Statement (including Local Planning Briefs) for submission, pre-examination consultation and examination

Proposal 3: Local Planning Briefs

These briefs perform the same role as the Spatial Planning Brief, but at the next level down. Prepared alongside the Spatial Statement, they explain what is required of each settlement or urban area in the LPA area, including, but going beyond, the current NPPF §65/66 housing targets. Every neighbourhood plan will know precisely what is expected and where are the fixes and the variables to deliver the outcome. Communities will have had the opportunity to shape the brief during their engagement on the Spatial Statement.

We see it working like this:

• Each Local Planning Brief sets out the housing target and other requirements or matters to be taken into account (e.g. affordable housing %, strategic landscape gaps, likely infrastructure needs) together with relevant data sets and constraints maps
• The Brief is provided to the Qualifying Body at a meeting where the LPA explains its contents and where the parties agree an outline action plan for completion
• Where the LPA is the Qualifying Body (see below), it hosts an open meeting in the community with local stakeholder groups invited to present the Brief and to actively recruit volunteers to join a steering group with members and officers
• In parished areas, the Local Planning Brief will be based on either single parish boundaries or, where the LPA considers it more appropriate in its Statement, multiple parish boundaries, as informed by its spatial vision
• In non-parished areas, the LPA will determine in its Statement the area to which the Local Planning Brief will apply, using either functional geography or single/multiple ward boundaries and informed by its spatial vision
• In Green Belt, AONB and National Park areas, the Local Planning Brief will set out the parameters within which change may be planned (as per the current NPPF §136 Green Belt boundary modification provision)

Proposal 4: Neighbourhood Plans

This level becomes the focus of more conventional plan making, allowing communities and other stakeholders to engage in developing, testing and choosing from spatial options to deliver the Brief. Some neighbourhood plans, including those covering large towns, have shown that they can accept and thrive in taking on this responsibility; arguably many more would have done so had such a brief been in place. The proposed improvements in digital data and communications will only make this easier still.

The practice of spatial planning and site allocations is well embedded in neighbourhood planning. There are many examples of Plans allocating the equivalent of growth, renewal and protection areas with supporting design codes and infrastructure delivery principles. The site allocation process is often more nuanced and spatially aware than the Local Plan equivalent, as communities are able to focus on a specific settlement or area at a finer grain of detail and, crucially, experience and are able to understand the inter-relationship between land uses, sites, services and infrastructure.

The current SHLAA/HELAA and SA/SEA processes hinder LPAs (and unwary Neighbourhood Plan teams) in doing this job. Both have militated against creative, vision-driven spatial planning and both should be abandoned. Neighbourhood plans have tried and trusted methods of engaging with land interests in assessing sites and do not need land availability data at the outset to inform their process. And we agree with the White Paper that SA/SEA should be replaced by a simpler sustainability test which could easily replicate the current neighbourhood planning ‘basic conditions’ requirement to demonstrate how the Plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.

However, neighbourhood planning is and should remain voluntary, in so far as town and parish councils are concerned as Qualifying Bodies. We expect most councils will want to take on this role, rather than cede it to another body, provided the support and resources are made available. But, where a council does not wish to lead the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan, there must be another means by which one comes forward, as it is essential that there is full coverage of an LPA area.

In such cases, which we anticipate will be the exception rather than the rule, the LPA must act as Qualifying Body, but must adhere to the same principles of community engagement and project governance that are well-established in neighbourhood planning. LPAs will require additional resources, either from within or from external support, but we expect most LPA planning teams to be reinvigorated and professionally rewarded by their involvement at this scale of plan making. Indeed, some LPAs already perform this kind of ‘hands-on’ role.

In non-parished areas, our experience leads us to believe that the provisions for designating Neighbourhood Areas and Forums have generally failed, despite the considerable efforts of some communities. In most urban areas it has proven too difficult to agree the geography and democratic credentials from the bottom up and maintaining all but the most enthusiastic Forums beyond the making of their Plans has been a struggle. In addition, the drivers of plan making are weaker in many urban areas, given their built-up nature and urban LPAs tend to have more comprehensive Local Plan policy coverage.

With some reluctance, we think that the Forum provisions should be removed. This new system requires comprehensive Neighbourhood Plan coverage and reviews within fixed time periods with very clear outcomes to deliver. Many Forums would be unable to make such commitments, and many will not want to be directed in such a way, especially where they are more interested in pursuing other, non-land use policy objectives. Instead, LPAs should take the lead, but following the much higher standards of community engagement expected of neighbourhood plans. There is plenty of best practice experience in recruiting and retaining volunteers from communities, the local knowledge and insights of whom will remain vital to success.

To address concerns that some LPAs may not adhere to those standards where they are the Qualifying Body, we make three proposals. Firstly, we think that the engagement and consultation activities should be subject to an audited ‘best endeavours’ principle, whether the Qualifying Body is local council or an LPA. Plan makers should expect that this will be scrutinised in the examination as a new, distinct test, using the Consultation Statement.

Secondly, we think that either MHCLG (or another body) should act as an independent arbitration service to be able to address and resolve plan making problems during their preparation from commencement through to examination. It should also continue to operate and oversee the management of a Neighbourhood Planning Support Programme and the accreditation of any consultants to be made available to Qualifying Bodies as part of that programme.

Thirdly, we have seen the significant value that independent expert advice can add to projects. The adviser role most often extends well beyond technical planning matters, for example policy writer, into project manager, strategies/tactics designer, professional language translator, community engagement facilitator, land interest negotiator, contractor manager and, perhaps above all, a trusted friend. We therefore think that every neighbourhood plan project should benefit from having an Independent Project Advisor that performs these roles as a core function, but that may or may not extend into technical support, which may be secured from other sources.

We see the main provisions of this enhanced neighbourhood planning system thus:

• Each Local Planning Brief is implemented through the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan, comprising:
• a statement and key diagram expressing the spatial vision and objectives
• a map showing the Growth, Renewal and Protected Areas
• the area and site-specific policies applying to each area (including design codes as necessary)
• place-specific development management policies allowed by the revised NPPF (e.g. mix of housing types and tenures, HRA mitigation contributions, Gypsy/Traveller, tourism, agriculture, parking, equestrian, horticulture etc)
• all policies to be accompanied by supporting text to advise on how the policy should be applied alongside other policies as relevant
• a simple implementation plan setting out the development phasing (including housing supply trajectory) and identifying supporting infrastructure investment proposals
• a short, written statement setting out how the spatial vision meets the terms of the Local Planning Brief and how it will be achieved by the policies and proposals
• Growth Areas will be those of any scale, not just ‘substantial’, where it is proposed to allocate land for development that is currently outside the defined settlement boundary, which are shown on the Policies Map
• Renewal Areas will be land identified within the defined settlement boundary where area or site-specific policies provide for a change of use, redevelopment or an intensification of established uses, which are also shown on the Policies Map
• Protected Areas will be shown on the Policies Map and will comprise:
• Land outside the settlement boundary designated as Green Belt (where relevant)
• Land outside the settlement boundary designated as AONB (where relevant)
• Land outside the settlement boundary defined as a valued landscape (including land preventing the coalescence of settlements)
• Land designated for its biodiversity value (SSSI, NNR, LNR and LWS)
• Land inside the settlement boundary designated as AONB (where relevant)
• Land designated as a Scheduled Monument or Conservation Area
• Buildings designated as heritage assets
• Buildings defined as non-designated heritage assets
• Land defined as an Area of Special Character or equivalent (i.e. a non-designated heritage asset)
• Land designated as a Local Green Space
• Land defined as a Town Centre Area
• Land defined as forming part of a Green Infrastructure Network
• Land defined as serving some other special spatial purpose (e.g. CAZ in London, strategic view corridor)
• Buildings and land defined as Commercial, Business and Service Uses (i.e. in established E uses) that warrant special protection from loss
• Buildings and land defined as Local Community Uses (i.e. in established F1 and F2 uses) that warrant special protection from loss
• Buildings and land defined as Industrial, Storage and Distribution Uses (i.e. in established B2 or B8 uses) that warrant special protection from loss
• In addition to the Local Planning Brief, the Neighbourhood Plan may require only the following evidence base, were necessary for meeting the terms of the brief:
• Local environmental capacity assessment (as above but in finer detail)
• Area character appraisal (to inform design coding/guidance)
• Commercial health check (as above but in finer detail, inc. urban/town/village centre, employment land, local business needs etc)
• Site assessment (of suitable, available and achievable land for housing and other uses)
• Bespoke evidence to support its development management policies (e.g. housing stock assessment, parking capacity etc)
• Once the Qualifying Body arrangements are agreed (see below), the process for preparing a Neighbourhood Plan will be standardised to ensure a quality and consistency across the LPA area that will enable effective development management, comprising:

1.       Local Planning Brief meeting with the LPA

2.       Project governance, management and action plan agreed (‘structure follows strategy’)

3.        Where the Brief requires the Plan to identify Growth or Renewal Areas, or where the Qualifying Body wishes to plan for local development that is not otherwise required by the Brief, formulate spatial options (using Brief information to show two or three different but plausible general ways that its terms may be met, setting out its key features)

4.       Community/stakeholder engagement on issues raised by the Brief and, where relevant, setting out the spatial options, highlighting any likely trade-offs of each option on which feedback is required

5.       Where relevant, selection of preferred spatial option

6.       Where relevant, site assessments (using a) a Call for Sites with a focused brief to land interests with land that may form part of the preferred spatial options, b) a simple assessment of opportunities and constraints based on the submitted land interest information, and c) a community survey on site preferences, based on an outline scheme proposition for each site)

7.       Where relevant, selection of preferred sites and negotiate further evidence requirements and allocation policy details with the relevant land interests

8.       Ongoing completion of evidence assessments to inform site, design and infrastructure policies

9.       Drafting of site, design and infrastructure policies

10.   Preparation of Draft Neighbourhood Plan document, to include a spatial vision, objectives, policies, supporting text, a Policies Map, a summary statement setting out how the Plan meets the terms of the Local Planning Brief and a summary statement setting out how the Plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development

11.   Publication of Draft Neighbourhood Plan (Reg 14) for statutory consultation

12.   Consideration of representations made and completion of the Final Neighbourhood Plan for submission and examination together with a Consultation Statement and a Certificate of General Conformity (Reg 15)

• The Plan will be prepared under modified Neighbourhood Planning Regulations that:
• Enable the LPA (through the Local Planning Brief) to determine the area to which the Neighbourhood Plan will apply
• As a result of which, remove the provision for designating Neighbourhood Areas
• Bolster the existing obligations on informal and statutory community engagement prior to the submission of the Plan and on the scrutiny of those obligations at the examination via the Consultation Statement
• As a result of which, remove the requirement for a pre-examination publicity period (Reg 16) and remove the requirement for a referendum
• In parished areas, require the LPA to invite the town or parish council to bring forward a Neighbourhood Plan to meet the terms of the Local Planning Brief and require the town or parish council to make that decision within six weeks (or within a specified time period agreed between the LPA and council)
• Broaden the definition of a Qualifying Body to allow an LPA to work with local stakeholders to bring forward a Neighbourhood Plan where a town or parish council has declined the invitation to act as the Qualifying Body
• As a result of which, remove the provision for designating Neighbourhood Forums
• Require examinations to be undertaken by a PINS Inspector using the same ‘sustainable development’ test proposed in the White Paper, informed by the Consultation Statement and by the Certificate of General Conformity (with the Local Planning Brief) and any Qualifying Body response to that Certificate for the Inspector to consider
• As a result of which, remove the basic conditions requirements
• Modify the examination process to bolster the status and role of the Qualifying Body and to limit the discretion of the Inspector to delete or modify policies
• As a result of which, make the Inspector’s report binding on the LPA
• Require that the Neighbourhood Plan is adopted by the LPA, with any modifications required by the Inspector, within 18 months of the adoption of the Spatial Statement
• New MHCLG guidance to Inspectors will be revised to make clear that, where the LPA and Qualifying Body agree the Certificate of General Conformity, they may only require modifications in exceptional circumstances, and this must be addressed within the examination period
• LPAs will be able to intervene and take over the responsibility for bringing forward the Neighbourhood Plan from the existing Qualifying Body, either by agreement or where it can demonstrate that the Plan will not otherwise meet its deadline for adoption
• Where an LPA is the Qualifying Body it must make a statement at the commencement of the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan setting out how it will engage the local community in the project in order to meet the Consultation Statement requirements of the Regulations
• In non-parished areas, where a local community has concerns that an LPA-led Neighbourhood Plan is not successfully engaging it in the project, it may make representations to MHCLG to arbitrate a successful resolution
• The Neighbourhood Plan must be reviewed on a five-year cycle, prompted by the receipt from the LPA of a new Local Planning Brief
• The outcome of the review may lead to either a full or partial replacement, or a modified version, of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan
• The Neighbourhood Planning Regulations will amend the modification provisions so that no examination will be necessary where the LPA issues a Certificate of General Conformity (with the Local Planning Brief) as part of its decision to adopt the modified Neighbourhood Plan, and the PPG will be amended to set out specific criteria by which this decision may be made (replacing the existing ‘change the nature of the plan’ test)

Proposal 5: Development Management

With all the above provisions in place, development management becomes a lot easier. We agreed that a (Neighbourhood Plan) site allocation should go much further in de-risking development schemes. With enhanced community engagement at that stage, this trade off will work much better for all concerned.

Our experience of neighbourhood planning has also shown the value of a local council assisting the LPA in considering planning applications, to ensure that the Neighbourhood Plan policies are properly acknowledged, understood and implemented. The scrutiny of reserved matters and later phase applications can dissuade end developers from seeking to water down the requirements of allocation policies. With a greater emphasis on resolving key principles and design coding in plan making, this will become more important.

We therefore propose that:

• All site allocations with proposed Growth and Renewal Areas will be granted Permission in Principle (PiP)on the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan
• The Permission in Principle regime will need to be modified to allow for the allocation policy’s additional key development, design and environmental mitigation principles (other than just location, uses and quantum) to be considered
• As a result, there will be no need for Local or Neighbourhood Development Orders or Community Right to Build Orders, nor for Part 2 of the LPA Brownfield Register
• The revised NPPF will contain a national set of development management policies for which there is no discretion in a Neighbourhood Plan and a list of matters where discretion is allowed but following national guidance
• Local councils, whether Qualifying Bodies or not, should be engaged by the applicant and LPA in the Technical Details Consent and S106 agreement processes to extend public scrutiny into this vital stage that governs what will actually be built
• Local councils should also be required to be engaged by the applicant in any pre-application exercise, whether coming through the PiP or planning application routes
• In non-parished areas, applicants and LPA should be obliged to demonstrate they have engaged with relevant local community organisations and/or with local residents/other stakeholders
• In all consents, no matter route is taken, applicants should be obliged to summarise their engagement activities in a Community Engagement Statement that is proportionate to the nature of the application

Proposal 6: Community Infrastructure Levy & Planning Obligations

The White Paper is short on analysis and details in respect of changes to the CIL and S106. In our view, CIL has not succeeded in simplifying how supporting infrastructure is planned, financed and delivered. From a specific neighbourhood planning perspective, it has rarely been the incentive to plan that was originally envisaged.

As with most other components of the system it has been made too complex and is too remote from plan making and from local community scrutiny. In our view, the S106 regime, although never perfect, presents a suitable mechanism for securing developer investment in supporting infrastructure. We agree, however, that it has operated with too much discretion, too little transparency and in too many cases takes far too long to agree the outcome. This has favoured the larger developers with the deepest pockets and has tied up too much scare LPA resource.

We think that the S106 regime can be sufficiently improved to tackle these problems with relatively few changes to the legislation. In doing so, it can also be used to help finance plan making, as it is reasonable to ask those that will reap significant financial rewards from plan making to contribute to its costs. There will then be no need for CIL, and it should be abandoned.

We therefore make the following proposals:

• Require proposed heads of terms of planning obligations to be set out in each allocation or site-specific policy
• Modify NPPF §56b to broaden scope of S106 to enable obligations to be sought that directly related to the development and/or that will contribute to meeting the infrastructure requirements identified in the Neighbourhood Plan
• Add a new clause to NPF §56 to allow for a nationally agreed financial contribution to be made to the Neighbourhood Plan Qualifying Body to invest in local infrastructure and community benefits (with PPG allowing the Body to use that sum to help meet the costs of preparing the Plan)
• Require any modifications to the S106 proposed after the adoption of the Plan to be subject to scrutiny by the LPA and Qualifying Body and to require LPA committee approval
• As a result of all the above, abandon the CIL initiative and any replacement

This simpler system will be much quicker and cheaper to deliver its outcomes without trading off either veracity or scrutiny. The White Paper proposes that the new style Local Plans should be adopted within 30 months. With a year set aside for submission, examination and adoption that leaves 18 months for plan drafting.

We believe that this is sufficient for LPAs to complete their draft Spatial Planning Statements and Local Planning Briefs, even in the first plan making round to 2024. Thereafter, as with Neighbourhood Plans now, these Statements and Briefs may only require modification on the five- year cycle that will not ‘change the nature of the plan’ where the strategic planning context has not significantly changed. The modification process can therefore be shorter still. Even where that context has changed, the 30-month timetable will remain achievable.

We think that although some additional LPA in-house resource may be required to manage the new system, its greater simplicity and greater involvement of local councils at the more time-intensive neighbourhood plan making stage, it should not require major investment. With evidence needs, including SA/SEA, far fewer, the cost of external consultant support should be far less. With a lower development management workload, some in-house staff may be redeployed into plan making activities, where their experience in implementing policy should be of great additional benefit (and has been lacking in many neighbourhood planning projects thus far).

The new system shifts the resource burden in plan making from the Local Plan to Neighbourhood Plans. We expect it will encourage LPAs to improve their support for neighbourhood planning as they will have more of a vested interest in the outcome. Those LPAs that have to become Qualifying Bodies should benefit from financial support as would local councils, and they can determine whether to secure external support and/or to bolster the in-house team.

As now, we would expect land interests promoting land through Neighbourhood Plans to be responsible for providing the site-specific evidence base for validation by the Qualifying Body and to collaborate with each other in doing so where relevant. We believe that significant evidence elements are already in place with no imminent need to update them.

In which case, a new Neighbourhood Plan Support Programme should:

• provide an automatic lump sum grant for each Neighbourhood Plan to the Qualifying Body (including the LPA where it is the Body) of £30,000 for a Plan that does not have to make site allocations and £50,000 for a Plan that does, to include the cost of the examination and the appointment of an Independent Project Advisor
• require the Qualifying Body to provide an end of project report setting out how the grant has been used and to return any unspent grant
• where the LPA becomes the Qualifying Body, any unspent grant is transferred to the LPA by the previous Body
• provide the LPA with £10,000 per Neighbourhood Plan that is being brought forward by a non-LPA qualifying body to meet the costs of its neighbourhood planning support service
• provide Qualifying Bodies with an accredited list of Independent Project Advisors
• maintain a database of made/adopted Neighbourhood Plan and other template documents for reference and use by Qualifying Bodies

If the Government is able to issue its Strategic Planning Briefs to all LPAs by the end of 2021, then by the end of 2024 there ought to be full coverage by adopted Spatial Statements. The new style Neighbourhood Plans can only come forward once the Spatial Statement (and its Local Planning Briefs) are adopted and so there will be full coverage by mid 2026. In practice, some LPAs with a small number of Local Planning Briefs to prepare for their area may be able to adopt their Statement sooner than 2024 and therefore some Plans will be adopted before 2026.

In the interim, the present Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan regulations and processes will apply. However, the SEA Regulations (or their future equivalent) should be modified immediately to remove the screening requirement for Neighbourhood Plans. Local Plans that have not already reached their Regulation 19 stage should be abandoned and LPAs should prepare for the new system during 2021 to implement in Q1 of 2022. In non-parished areas, LPAs should be encouraged to work with existing Neighbourhood Forums to plan for a transition to the new system through 2021.

Where LPAs are choosing to delay the preparation of new Local Plans until the outcome of the White paper is known, Neighbourhood Plans can and should be encouraged by MHCLG to fill the policy vacuum. This can be done by requiring LPAs to meet the provisions of NPPF §66 by providing an indicative housing figure within two months of its request by a Qualifying Body. The LPA should do so in a short report explain how the figure has been derived from the calculation of objectively assessed housing need and taking into account the LPA’s consideration of opportunities and constraints. Such reports will in essence be the precursors to the Local Planning Brief outlined above.

The Growth, Renewal and Protected Areas proposals may be trialled with immediate effect by new Neighbourhood Plans and by those that are under review. Those projects that do may require additional support (notably on design coding) that should be met through either the existing Technical Support Package if it has the capacity or other expertise using additional grant (as per the Affordable Homes for Sale grant extra).

On the face of it, the White Paper presents a radical reworking of the current system, but it leaves too many parts of the current system unaltered. The chances of its outcomes being achieved are slim.

We have taken some of its radical components – top down housing targets, ‘zoning’ – and set them within a much simpler system, for the benefit of everyone with a stake in its success. Almost every part of that system has been tried and tested in one way or another over many years and local communities have shown they are willing, able and creative partners. It’s just that the parts haven’t been assembled in the proper way to make the system both effective and efficient. Worse, every attempt to correct it has either sought to address the wrong causes or to deal with symptoms alone.

Simplicity is the key. Stripping away the comfort blankets of process and evidence that have too often led to procrastination and rank bad planning we think will be welcomed by those on whom we rely to deliver sustainable development. And by every planner, professional and community, that spend most of their lives frustrated with it. If its radicalism we want, then do it properly!

© RCOH Ltd 2020

Oneill Homer Research Note October 2020

CONTENTS

REFERENCES

Data entry was carried out over a period spanning across two months in September and October 2020. The information published should therefore be considered as up to date as at 31 August 2020 but are reliant on local authority websites being updated regularly.

The database included the following information:

•         Neighbourhood Area

•         Region

•         Local Planning Authority

•         2nd Local Planning Authority (if cross-boundary)

•         Latest stage of progress

•         Qualifying Body

•         Designation Status

•         Forum Designation Date

•         Area Designation Date

•         Examiner Report

•         Referendum

•         Made

•         Examiner

•         Yes %

•         Turnout %

•         Local Planning Authority Type

•         NDO/CRTBO

•         Revised Made Plan

•         Number of homes allocated*

•         Target*

•         Reason if not allocating*

•         Supported by planning consultants*

•         Consultancy*

* Additions to MHCLG database for the purpose of this research

Each entry was reviewed and updated and the content of all made neighbourhood plans was then reviewed to collect the additional data set out above. This included a review of neighbourhood plans which had successfully passed examination. The referendum of these plans are postponed until at least 6 May 2021 in line with the Local Government and Police and Crime Commissioner (Coronavirus) (Postponement of Elections and Referendums) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

The approach adopted for data entry excluded sites which already had the benefit of an extant planning permission or an existing allocation in a Local Plan, unless the neighbourhood plan allocation included more dwellings. The support of a planning consultancy was only captured where this had been explicitly stated in the neighbourhood plan document itself.

The data collected is intended to be kept up to date to inform a wider debate on the impacts of neighbourhood planning in England and whether the reformed planning system provides a platform to facilitate or hinder its development and wider uptake.

2.                 THE CONTEXT OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING

2.1   Coverage

The publication of the database used in this research by MHCLG appears to indicate that there is some form of central monitoring taking place for neighbourhood planning and the intention of quarterly updates is noted. However, its publication was largely silent amongst the wider planning press which is potentially one example of the wider planning profession’s ambivalence about the benefits of neighbourhood planning.

The data extracted from the updated database shows there remains a large gap between the number of designations and number of made plans which recent research records as largely due to time, processual and technical burdens, relationship with local plan progress, and levels of enthusiasm in some local planning authorities (Parker, et al., 2020). Parker et al also highlight that the number of new area designations has decreased over time. Whilst valid burdens for neighbourhood planning, the analysis in Section 3 of this report indicates that there may be other factors driving the large gap between designations and made plans and the reclining pace of uptake. For example, the low number of neighbourhood plans that are being reviewed is likely to be a result of inadequacy in reporting procedures rather than an indication of poor uptake.

1 Local Government and Police and Crime Commissioner (Coronavirus) (Postponement of Elections and Referendums) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020

2.2   Case Studies

There is undoubtedly a large number of case studies which can highlight the success stories of non-strategic spatial planning delivered through neighbourhood plans. A selection of these from market leader, Oneill Homer, is presented below. A platform for sharing good practice, and motivating planners to champion and support neighbourhood planning, is largely missing from professional planning bodies which should be interrogated moving forward.

3.           KEY NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING DATA

3.1   Analysis

Of the 1153 reviewed neighbourhood plans a total of 375 plans made housing allocations. The total number allocated includes 4 neighbourhood plans which had passed examination and were awaiting a decision statement from the local planning authority and 42 awaiting referendum2. Despite these 42 neighbourhood plans carrying significant weight in decision making3, the inability to apply the protection of paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has undermined neighbourhood planning. The effect of this on the uptake of neighbourhood planning is unknown.

Two fifths – 39% – of non-allocating neighbourhood plans recorded support from consultants in the preparation of their neighbourhood plans. Just over half – 52% – of allocating neighbourhood plans recorded support from consultants during the preparation of their neighbourhood plans. It would appear therefore that there is validity in the calls for direct professional involvement in neighbourhood planning (McGuinness & Ludwig, 2017 as cited in Parker, et al., 2020) in order to continue to boost plans for housebuilding through neighbourhood planning, albeit on a small scale.

What continues to be largely missing from neighbourhood planning research are the reasons why neighbourhood plans do not allocate and the effect of this on the take-up of neighbourhood plan preparation. 32% of communities did not have the choice to consider non-strategic spatial planning through the neighbourhood plan process as the Local Plan had already made allocations which met the housing target. The next highest contributing factor are communities which lie within the Green Belt. Neighbourhood Plans cannot amend Green

2 Local Government and Police and Crime Commissioner (Coronavirus) (Postponement of Elections and Referendums) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020

3 Planning Policy Guidance Paragraph: 107 Reference IF: 41-107-20200925

Belt boundaries and can therefore not allocate sites through the neighbourhood plan process. Given that paragraph 136 of the NPPF – which allows neighbourhood plans to make detailed amendments to Green Belt boundaries – have only been operational for a couple of years, and more importantly is dependent on strategic policy establishing the need for such amendments, a further 22% of communities did not have a choice to even consider non- strategic spatial planning through the neighbourhood plan process.

20% of non-allocating plans were prepared in small villages where there was no requirement for neighbourhood plans to contribute to the housing target. Conversely 7% were prepared in urban locations, and although some of these identified opportunity sites which encouraged new housing delivery, specific numbers were largely missing from these documents.

11% of non-allocating plans had demonstrated that the housing target had been met by planning consents.

It is important to note that in Cornwall it became apparent that the majority of neighbourhood plans had carried out a capacity assessment of sites in the built-up area boundary and then used the settlement boundary tool to enable these sites to come forward through the development management process, given that this accounts for nearly 4% of non-allocating plans.

Therefore, only 4% of non-allocating neighbourhood plans avoided allocating sites. The reasons for this include uncertainty of the target – but most committed to an early review to deliver the requirement once known – sensitive location, consistent windfall delivery anticipated to meet the target amongst other provisions.

The findings clearly demonstrate that there are a significant number of burdens which affect the ability of neighbourhood plans to allocate sites for new homes. Despite this, other burdens historically highlighted in neighbourhood planning research, and a decline in the take-up of neighbourhood planning, neighbourhood plans are boosting plans for housebuilding by 23%.

3.2   Infographic

4.           THE FUTURE DEBATE ON NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING

The data collected provides an initial insight into some of the burdens which have not yet been embedded in an understanding of neighbourhood planning. The data also encompasses all neighbourhood plans providing for the first time a true picture of housing delivery in neighbourhood plans.

The report also highlights that there is no central monitoring location and platform to discuss and debate the success stories of neighbourhood planning encouraging planners to get involved and develop it as an important tool in the planning system. It is quite likely for example that there are more than 23 communities reviewing their made neighbourhood plans but without talking to communities the true figure will not be known.

Many authorities have already recognised that neighbourhood planning is ‘better placed to identify potential development sites than standard LPA processes… but (our) findings suggest that some LPAs may not be entirely receptive to closer working with neighbourhood planning entities’ (Parker, et al., 2020).

If the devolution agenda continues to result in an increase in the number of unitary authorities and mayoral combined authorities, then neighbourhood planning must be part of the answer to make better non-strategic spatial planning judgements which will allow local planning authorities to focus on strategic matters of substance. This is largely reflected in the recommendations of the Local Plan Experts Group Report to MHCLG in March 2016.

The report also recognised the importance of defining a legitimate role for neighbourhood plans (Local Plans Expert Group, 2016). It is considered that this led to clarification of the strategic and non-strategic roles in plan-making in the amendments to the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance in 2018. The amendment assisted communities, and planning consultants supporting communities, to continue to advocate and improve the understanding of the role of neighbourhood planning in the plan-making system. The importance of defining the roles and relationships of different tiers of the plan-making system will therefore continue to be important in considering the reforms of the planning system.

The final important question in the government’s objective to boost housebuilding is how will the 23% gap will be filled if non-strategic spatial planning is removed from neighbourhood planning? This is unlikely to be replicated in the preparation of local plans, despite the emphasis on greater engagement with communities, as ownership of the future of their place will not be in their hands.

              10

REFERENCES

Lichfields. (2018). Local Choices? Housing delivery through neighbourhood plans. London: Lichfields.

Local Plans Expert Group. (2016). Local Plans Report to the Communities Secretary and to the Minister of Housing and Planning.

McGuinness, D., & Ludwig, C. (2017). Developing a neighbourhood plan: stories from "community- led" planning pathfinders. Brownhill and Bradley (eds) op cit, 95-111.

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. (2020). White Paper: Planning for the Future.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2020, February 13). Key neighbourhood planning data. Retrieved from Neighbourhood Planning brough to you by Locality: https://neighbourhoodplanning.org/toolkits-and-guidance/key-neighbourhood-planning-data/

Parker, P., Wargent, D., Salter, D., Dobson, D., Lynn, D., Yuille, D., & Navigus Planning. (2020). Impacts of Neighbourhood Planning in England, Final Report to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. University of Reading.

October 2020