Summer madness: what have you missed?
Pack away those beach towels, friends. It’s back to school season. I hope you have a fresh pencil case. And some freshly polished shoes. Deep breath.
We begin this term with a pop quiz. Fingers on buzzers:
In the summer of 2023, whose work has been described variously as:
You need a clue? Well, this should help: the “nonsense” comment came from a Tory MP, “incomprehensible” was the holy verdict of a Bishop, and “utterly pathetic” - that was one of the more polite comments from an understandably miffed managing director of Marks and Spencer.
Time’s up. You’ve all guessed it! Each comment referred, of course, to your friend and mine: one Michael Gove MP. Who has had quite the summer. Culminating in yesterday’s proposals to re-write the Habitats Regulations. More of which in a mo.
If you’ve done the sensible, healthy thing and tried to tune out the noise over the summer months, well: (i) I hope it’s been lovely, and (ii) welcome back. We need you. There’s a lot to talk about. And blimey Charlie, there’s work to be done.
So for today, what if we spent just a couple of short minutes getting caught up. At least on some of the big headlines. So that we can set off into September together with a vague sense of what’s been going on? Would that help? It’d help me at least.
So while you were ordering another cocktail as the sun set, or hunting Nessie, or cancelling your private jet to Cannes or whatever you’ve been up to… what have you missed? Here’s a top 5 run-down, in broadly chronological order:
1. Select committee verdict
Nothing like getting your homework marked. You may remember back in May I wrote about the Minister’s clanger-tastic appearance before the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. Well, the report is now in: here. The verdict: must try harder. Much harder. In particular:
The “start-stop” nature of reform over many years has led to - and is still leading to - local plans halting all over the country.
The Government should assess the impacts of past NPPF changes - which it has not done - before bringing in new changes.
There is insufficient evidence to show how removing mandatory local housing targets will lead to more housebuilding.
There should be a national review into the purpose of the Green Belt, and local Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed as part of plan-making.
The “standard method” is not fit for purpose. The “urban uplift” should be abolished.
The Government should not abolish the duty to cooperate without a clear understanding of what will replace it.
There is still no comprehensive skills and resources strategy for the planning sector, and we need one.
National Development Management policies should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
So. There we have it. Have there been any answers to the select committee’s critiques? Any date for publication of the new NPPF (the one we had been promised by the spring)? Any hint on what that new NPPF might actually say?
Naaaaaaah.
The department is still plodding its way through consultation responses with no fixed end in sight. Whilst, at the same time, launching yet further consultations, e.g. plan-making: here (we’re back to doing plan-making end-to-end in 30 months which, without central fixed housing targets, is somewhere on the spectrum between “wildly optimistic” and “completely stark raving bananas”). And then there’s changes to permitted development rights - here. And reforms to planning fees - here. And on. And on. And on.
Here’s my grand proposal for planning reform: a 1 in 1 out rule for consultations. The Government’s not allowed to launch a new consultation until it’s actually responded to the last one. Who’s with me?
2. Barrow, Cambridge and staircases - Gove’s big speech
10 days later, Mr Gove made a big speech: here. So much in there. And yet, so little.
Sam Stafford described it all - brilliantly, I thought - as “a smorgasbord of reheated leftovers and whatever else could be cobbled together from the back of the cupboard”. Spot on. Read Sam’s excellent blog for a full accounting of what’s on offer - the first of my two blog posts of the summer (second listed below). Gove’s highlights include:
Hundreds of thousands of new homes in Cambridge (what was all that about protecting the Green Belt again?) and lots of new lab space. Which Anthony Browne, the Conservative MP for South Cambridgeshire, called “nonsense”, but we shall see.
All of which is to be facilitated by “a new “supersquad” of expert planners”. Yes. You read that right. A “supersquad”. As the real life news moves beyond parody. Planners by day, with capes and magic powers by night. Who will roam around the country with a £13 million budget and a jaunty theme tune, showing up in your area in their super-mega-plan-van and showing you eejits how to plan properly.
Plus turning Barrow in Cumbria into “a new powerhouse for the North”. Wonderful as Barrow is, I’m not sure many had it on their planning reform bingo cards.
Finally, a word on staircases. Gove’s speech u-turned from the Government’s earlier indication that residential buildings above 30 metres in height should be designed and built with two staircases for reasons of fire safety. Instead, his speech goes along with the 18 metre limit. A whopping great change. But then the speech talks about “transitional arrangements in place to make sure that there is no disruption to housing supply.” But here we are heading into the Autumn and nobody I’ve asked has the faintest clue what those transitional arrangements are going to be. Gove wants to give “much-desired clarity to builders” and to avoid “jeopardising the supply of homes”. Of course. Well. If clarity’s what you’re after, hinting at unspecified transitional provisions and then not telling anyone what they are is exactly how not to achieve it.
3. M & S
You’ll want to check out the M & S decision here. It’s the case that has launched a thousand blog posts, and you’ve probably read about it already. Another example of Michael Gove putting aside the views of the applicant, the local authority and the poor old inspector who sat through weeks of evidence at inquiry and spent an age writing up incredibly detailed conclusions. We’ve been here before recently. Anyway. I’ll just make one observation:
A critical part of a critical decision was the Inspector’s conclusion - with which Michael Gove agreed - that “there should generally be a strong presumption in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings”. This “strong presumption” is said to come out of para 152 NPPF. And because of this strong presumption, “the onus lies on the applicant to demonstrate that refurbishment would not be deliverable or appropriate” and “it is for the applicant to show that it had considered all reasonable alternatives”.
Well, here’s my observation: I think that’s rubbish. The NPPF contains lots of “presumptions”. Some tilt in favour of development, and some against. A presumption describes a policy provision where a particular outcome is assumed in a given circumstances (e.g. permission is granted if there is no 5 year housing land supply or refused for inappropriate development in the green belt) unless the presumption is rebutted in accordance with the relevant policy test(s) (e.g. unless a scheme’s harms significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits, or whatever). As I say, there are lots and lots of presumptions in the NPPF, and often the presumptions jostle against one another for priority.
Para 152 says that:
“The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.”
Encouraging reuse. Right. But there’s not a presumption in sight. Still less a “strong” presumption.
And how would such a policy presumption work in a case like M&S anyway? Which involves an unlisted building. Which can be demolished under permitted development rights without the need for a planning application?
For what it’s worth, I think we have more than enough policies (and policy presumptions) to try to unpick, without the Secretary of State making up new ones on the fly.
4. Nutrient neutrality
I had a stab at summarising the nutrient neutrality problem in my last post: here. Well, yesterday the Government announced its proposed solution. The proposed amendments to the Levelling Up Bill, which intend to amend the Habitats Regulations, are here.
The ink is barely dry, but that hasn’t stopped reams of nonsense being churned out from all sides of the spectrum. Most commentators had not, of course, read the draft regulations. For a characteristically sensible take, see Simon Ricketts’ first impressions here.
For my money, the key clause is the new Regulation 85A of the Habitats Regs where, for applications for planning permission:
Just like Simon I think, it’s possible to (a) see the sense in supporting this direction of travel, whilst at the same time (b) seeking answers from Government on why the “assumptions” local planning authorities are being required to make don’t add up to regression from EU environmental standards we’ve promised to uphold. Asking local authorities to maintain the assumption of no harm even if e.g. there is advice from Natural England that harm would be caused… it’s very fiddly. Getting to the bottom of that conundrum is going to require a detailed, grown up and nuanced debate. So thank heavens it’s up for discussion in the House of Commons, eh (arf arf).
NB there’s nothing in the proposed amendments on the water neutrality issues which are causing such havoc across lots of areas in the south-east. Nothing also in relation to recreational impacts.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is soon to tell us whether permission is granted to appeal in the CG Fry case I wrote about last time. I’ll keep you posted.
5. And in other news…
More local plans continue to either be paused indefinitely or bite the dust altogether. One recent casualty was Tandridge: see the Inspector’s letter here. I was one of an army of lawyers and consultants who attended hearing sessions in Tandridge for this plan several years ago. When it was clear to anyone watching that the plan was in very grave trouble. What a terrible waste of public time and money that’s taken all these years for it finally to be put out of its misery. For my second blog of the summer, please do read Simon R on the continuing crisis in local plan-making: here. Dear me it’s good.
Meanwhile, Labour are going for new towns: here. We don’t know where yet. But one of the locations that keeps coming up… you guessed it… Cambridge. Looks like growing Cambridge may be one thing the national parties agree on. Even if Cambridge’s local politicians aren’t convinced.
So then. The main take-away: it sounds like a good time to be a planner in either Cambridge or Barrow. For those of us elsewhere, we’ll just have to get on as best we can. And hope Michael Gove makes an unexpected speech about our town one day. I hope you’re all well, #planoraks. And, fingers crossed, just a little bit refreshed. Back to real life after the summer hols isn’t always easy. But the good news is that we have a full programme of planning drama ahead of us this Autumn. The promise of LURB being finalised. And who knows. If the stars align just right - we could even get a new NPPF. Stranger things have happened. Admittedly, not many stranger things. Stay well #planoraks, enjoy the early days of Autumn, and - whatever else you do - #keeponplanning.
