The coalition Government came to power with a commitment to introduce a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ in the planning system in England.
This means that, in the first instance, local authorities’ decisions on planning applications should be based on whether a proposed development is consistent with the Local Plan for the area, provided that Plan is up to date.
But where the Local Plan is out of date, local authorities are expected to attach far less importance to the policies in the Local Plan, and instead make decisions based on the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which makes clear that development which is sustainable should be ‘approved without delay’.
Since publication of the NPPF on 27 March 2012, local authorities have had a one year grace period to get their Local Plans up to date.
The Government’s hope is that the end of the one year grace period will make it harder for local authorities to refuse planning applications, helping to deliver its growth agenda and, in particular, to stimulate the delivery of new homes.
What will the end of the one year grace period mean for development?
Stuart Robinson, Head of Planning at CBRE, commented:
“With the NPPF given full weight and the pro-development message being hammered home by the Government, developers will be more willing to take a punt. This is particularly true of housing, where the NPPF requires that local councils have a supply of deliverable sites to meet housing need for the next five years. If local councils haven’t identified that supply they are vulnerable to speculative applications which they may find difficult to refuse. If they are refused, developers will be more willing to appeal.”
Ian Anderson, Head of National & Retail Planning at CBRE, added:
“What the presumption in favour of sustainable development is saying is, ‘Get a Local Plan up to date, or face the consequences.'”
Richard Lemon, a Planning Associate Director at CBRE, agrees, noting that the requirement to demonstrate a five year land supply has been playing an important role in decisions for some time:
“The requirement to demonstrate a five-year land supply was a key part of national planning policy even before the NPPF was published, and the one year grace period hasn’t led decision-makers to attach any less weight to it, as recent decisions in Norfolk, Gloucestershire and Cheshire have demonstrated, All of these saw housing developments given the go-ahead because of a lack of a five-year land supply.
“We can expect five-year land supply to be a similarly important issue in the future, especially as developers become more willing to look at sites they might previously have disregarded.”
Should the Government heed the call from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and delay giving full weight to the NPPF?
Ian Anderson commented:
“To delay giving full weight to the NPPF would send out the wrong message to local authorities and to developers. The fact that a local authority has failed to put a Local Plan in place, or has an out-dated Local Plan, should not be used to stifle development. We have a huge shortage of housing as well as an urgent need to stimulate growth through property and construction. We need to swiftly address both these challenges.”
Will councils lose control if they don’t have plans in place?
Stuart Robinson commented:
“Regardless of whether they have a local plan in place, local authorities will still have ‘control’ in that they will be the initial decision-makers. But the presumption in favour of sustainable development requires them to adhere to the key tenets of the NPPF and this means that developers whose planning application is rejected at committee will increasingly choose to appeal. At this point the control moves away from the local authority.”
Richard Lemon agrees, but is cautions that developers making appeals in areas with out of date Local Plans cannot expect an automatic ‘yes’. He said:
“Housing appeals over the last year have not been allowed to succeed at all costs, and that’s because the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not simply about saying ‘yes’ to everything. The presumption, as set out in the NPPF, is also about good design, sustainable transport and making best use of sites, as we’ve been reminded by recent appeal decisions in north London, Somerset and South Yorkshire. Those issues will remain as important as delivering new homes, even after the end of the one year grace period.”
Stuart Robinson warned that:
“Planning by appeal is not a healthy way for a planning system to function. Appeals are expensive and lengthy and invariably create tension within a community.”
How soon will the remaining councils have plans in place?
Stuart Robinson commented:
“Many local authorities are as many as two years behind, as creating a Local Plan is a long process. Unfortunately there have been many instances – most recently in the case of Melton, where a plan was found to be unsound on a fairly fundamental issue – and in these cases the local authority will have to start the process again, which may well take years.”
Will planning operate differently between the local plan ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’?
Stuart Robinson commented,
“The ‘haves’ are in a stronger position because they are less likely to get speculative applications for housing than the ‘have nots’, and may end up with housing in locations which don’t go down well with existing residents. Councillors in those local authorities which fail to put a Local Plan in place will face an angry electorate when unwelcome development goes ahead as a result.”