Danger zone - a week of bad news
Urgh. Isn’t it typical? We go for weeks without much big news in England’s town planning system. Then half term happens. And loads of news starts flooding in all at once. So much that it’s hard to keep track of. Well - “keeping track” is my middle name. Let me give you a 3 minute primer. But fair warning before we start. None of this news - not a bit of it - could described as “good”. Viewer discretion is advised. I hope you’re sitting down.
We have a new housing minister, Stuart Andrew MP, whose previous musings on the inter-relationship between the Green Belt and housing targets may not exactly fill you with confidence (if the Minister’s looking for some light reading material, can I recommend this). Of course, the revolving door of the housing minister’s office - average term per minister under 1.5 years - is a huge problem. Addressing the country’s broken housing market is a long-term strategic challenge. We haven’t been doing very well. It’d be remarkable if even an intelligent and well-intentioned minister managed to understand the big problems with our system within a year. Let alone had enough time to do anything about them. Good luck, Mr Andrew! You’ll need it. We’re rooting for you.
Dark days in Uttlesford. Off it goes into special measures. Which means that major applications - including those for 10+ homes - can now be made to the Planning Inspectorate directly. For the failings which led to this, see here (we’re talking in particular about timelines for decision-making and % of decisions over-turned on appeal). On the data, it would seem that many other authorities are at similar risk. Hardly, I fear, the sign of a system working well. Why have there been so many appeals in Uttlesford? It all comes back to broken plans. Time after time after time.
Dark days also in Basildon on the same theme, as the Council votes for an emergency motion to withdraw its long-emerging local plan because... you guessed it… “The reason for the withdrawal is based upon, in part, to the current Conservative Administration views and beliefs in placing a greater emphasis on protecting the Greenbelt for current and future generations than the previous administration.” Are you spotting a theme yet? Watch this space: the monitoring officer is now penning a report explaining, it would seem, why this decision to withdraw the plan is so bad that it constitutes maladministration.
More dark days in another Green Belt authority, Tandridge, as the local plan Inspector yet again suggests that the Council should think hard about withdrawing its long-running draft plan and starting again. But the Council presses on regardless.
I touched last week on several other Green Belt authorities whose plans are either in trouble or abandoned altogether. But for a full - and totally depressing! - survey of the field, see Simon Ricketts’ recent hit-list. We are in very serious trouble here, friends. Large parts of the system are starting to sink. Our new minister has his work cut out. Again, let’s hope he’s in post long enough to do something about it.
Dark days too for supporters of the Ox-Cam corridor project - which I talked about a bit here. The Department has now apparently confirmed that central government will “not be taking the project forward centrally” and will be leaving it to local authorities to thrash out, and there is no longer term commitment from central government to any funding. Ah well. So much for the “the need for a government-led approach to strategic planning” which the Department was telling us about last year. So much for last year’s confirmation that this project could not safely be left to individual authorities to bring forward. That was all so 2021. What I find so weird about this is that last year the Government was telling us that supporting the Ox-Cam project was part of its “levelling up” agenda. But now, apparently, ditching central support for the project “chimes with much of the local leadership narrative in the Levelling Up White Paper”. The great advantage of flexible slogans like “levelling up” is that they can mean whatever you want them to mean. Even if what you’re now saying is literally the opposite of what you were saying a few months ago. Nobody can call you out on it. Because the phrase “levelling up” is like a Rorschach inkblot test. We all see what we want to see.
Meanwhile, the Chief Planner promises a “further update on our approach to changes in the planning system in the Spring”. Well here’s hoping! Updates are lovely, of course. Who wouldn’t want an update? I’ll be front of the queue for a nice new update. But you know what would be even better? A proper response to the 2020 White Paper consultation with a programme for reform. Because this chronic uncertainty over what - if any - reforms are actually coming forward is now a big part of the reason our system is in such paralysis, as I touched on last week.
All of which is why you may find yourself agreeing with the folks at Redrow when they say that “it is clear the planning system is now at its lowest point for a number of years”. ☹️.
So after all that doom and gloom, you may be looking for some good news. Right? Fair enough. But…
I don’t have any good news.
What I do have is a remarkable proposal from the Government to amend the Building Safety Bill. Here’s the proposed text - take a careful look. If this becomes law, you’ll need to know about it:
“Prohibition on development for prescribed persons
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit a person of a prescribed description from carrying out development of land in England (or a prescribed description of such development).
(2) A prohibition may be imposed for any purpose connected with—
(a) securing the safety of people in or about buildings in relation to risks arising from buildings, or
(b) improving the standard of buildings.
(3) A prohibition under the regulations applies despite planning permission (or any prescribed description of planning permission) having been granted.
(4) The regulations may provide that, in prescribed cases, no prescribed certificate under the 1990 Act may be granted (and any purported grant is of no effect) […]”
What are we talking about here? We’re talking about allowing the Secretary of State to prevent development which has been already granted planning permission to take place. Without altering or removing the planning permission. This is extreme stuff. To go back to basics, after the 2nd World War the Government nationalised the right to develop land. Enter stage left: the planning system. The fundamental legal requirement ever since has been to secure planning permission before you develop land. Assuming you’ve got that permission, the system broadly allows you to get on with it. But, it would seem, not any more.
Now, there is already a power for the Secretary of State to revoke planning permissions in certain cases. But that power is hardly ever used, it can’t be used once building works or a change of use have been completed, and anyone unlucky enough to have their permission revoked may have the right to financial compensation (oddly that compensation is payable by the hapless local planning authority even if it’s the Secretary of State who’s done the revoking).
But for this proposed reform, there’s not yet any mention of compensating developers who have already gained their consent but - without even having the consent revoked - are legally required not to implement it. Yes the SoS could only take this extreme step for one of two purposes, but those purposes - particularly the 2nd one about “improving the standard of buildings” - are very broadly crafted indeed. The impetus behind this now may relate to concerns about fire safety and cladding. But the proposed language doesn’t stop there. Not even close.
If these clauses become law, this could be a far-reaching new tool for the Secretary of State to control development which has already been permitted, without actually revoking the planning permission or - it would appear - paying anyone any compensation. Who knows how often this draconian power would actually be used. One would hope only very rarely indeed. But we should follow this proposal closely. Becuase this is a drastic idea which - if not handled very carefully - risks undermining confidence in the fundamental precepts of our system. So. You know. More good news.
Let’s hope we’ve more cheerful topics to go over next week! In the meantime, I hope you’re well #planoraks, and enjoying these early signs of spring. Keep the faith. It can’t be that bad, can it? Eyes on the prize. And, as normal, do your level best to #keeponplanning.
