Last year, the planning system was marked by the outbreak of hostilities between local councils, the Planning Inspectorate and, in some cases, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), over the role and content of emerging local plans. Judging by the last few months, this trend looks set to continue.
Ongoing battles
In October, the secretary of state issued a temporary holding direction to South Oxfordshire District Council to prevent it withdrawing its local plan from examination, following a change in political control in May.
The council had sought to withdraw its local plan from examination due to concerns over the plan’s housing target, which it considered to be too high, and over the scale of green belt releases proposed to meet it. If South Oxfordshire had been allowed to withdraw its plan, it would have had significant implications for the government’s growth plans for the region – and the funding that had already been allocated to it. As of January 2020, the holding direction was still in place, and the secretary of state was considering asking Oxfordshire County Council to progress the plan in the place of the district.
Elsewhere, a long-running argument between the examining inspector and Sevenoaks District Council, over the extent to which it has cooperated with neighbouring authorities over its unmet housing need, is reaching fever pitch. In December last year, the inspector wrote to the council setting out her conclusions that it had failed to meet its duty to cooperate and inviting it to withdraw its local plan. Sevenoaks is refusing to do so – a move which is likely to force the inspector to find the plan legally flawed and recommend that it not be adopted. From the tone of the council’s correspondence to date, it seems distinctly possible that such a recommendation could end up in the Planning Court. This may turn out to be the planning case of the year.
Wealden District Council has also been advised to withdraw its local plan, as a result of failing to comply with the duty to cooperate; although in its case the failure centred on the approach taken to the issue of nitrate deposits in the Ashdown Forest and the unmet housing need of Eastbourne, one of its neighbours.
The points of contention between national and local government extend beyond the adoption of local plans. In London, the secretary of state’s decision to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of the Westferry Printworks in Tower Hamlets has provoked outrage from the local planning authority, which is reportedly considering a judicial review.
One of the reasons for the council’s fury is the timing of the decision, which was released two days before the borough’s charging schedule came into effect. If the decision had been issued a few days later, it would have been subject to the community infrastructure levy – a liability which has been reported as being in the region of £40m.
A clash of priorities
The golden thread that runs through all of these conflicts is the difficulty of reconciling the differences between local and national priorities within the planning system. Sevenoaks, Wealden, South Oxfordshire and Tower Hamlets have all taken positions that are largely supported by their residents. In South Oxfordshire, the dismay of local residents over housing numbers was a key factor in the May elections, and the new councillors understandably feel duty-bound to respond to this. There is similar opposition to large-scale housing developments within Wealden, Sevenoaks and the wider South East.
The Planning Inspectorate finds itself caught in the middle, mediating between national policies that are designed to increase both housing supply and rates of delivery and local councils concerned about the impact of large-scale growth on their communities. Prior to 2010, this role was largely filled by regional spatial strategies, and the lacuna left following their abolition has yet to be satisfactorily addressed.
The lack of an effective formal structure for strategic cross-boundary planning on contentious issues, such as housing numbers, has created fertile ground for conflict. Against this background, it is perhaps not surprising that the number of public spats between local councils and the planning inspectorate seems to be on the rise.
The situation is not helped by reports of disagreements over policy direction within MHCLG itself. Last autumn, the housing minister and the secretary of state both made interventions that hinted at disagreements over political priorities. In early October, the housing minister wrote to Broxtowe Borough Council, shortly after its local plan had been found sound by the Planning Inspectorate.
In her letter she expressed concern over the extent of the green belt releases contained in the plan, and urged the council to prioritise brownfield sites moving forward. Only a few days later, the secretary of state issued his holding direction to South Oxfordshire. Since the start of 2020, reports of disagreements within the ministerial team have intensified, with alleged clashes between them making it into the national press.
The question of housing, and how best to deliver it, has become increasingly politicised. At the same time, local planning authorities appear to be becoming more assertive, perhaps as a result of an increasingly engaged and empowered local electorate. The December election has given the Conservatives the largest working majority they have had in years – and, once Brexit is out of the way, they will surely turn their attention to the vexing issue of housing.
The stage has been set. Will 2020 be the year in which a structure is put in place to resolve the cross-boundary issues that have so troubled Wealden and Sevenoaks? Or are we embarking on another year of conflict?
Nicola Gooch is a partner at Irwin Mitchell
