In the last week of July, Michael Gove unveiled the government’s “long-term plan for housing” and, with it, a series of consultations that could best be described as a summer of planning reform. In the space of a few days, the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities published:
- The outcome of its consultation on increasing planning fees;
- A consultation on changes to permitted development rights and a call for evidence on nature-based solutions, farm efficiency projects and diversification which closes on 25 September 2023;
- The plan-making reforms consultation on implementation, which closes on 18 October 2023; and
- A consultation on operational reforms to the nationally significant infrastructure project consenting process, which closes on 19 September 2023.
This article considers two of these consultations: the new system for plan-making and the proposed changes to permitted development rights.
The move to 30-month local plans
The idea of 30-month local plans was first proposed as part of the Planning for the Future white paper in 2020, the intention being to simplify and speed up local plan-making. The original package of reforms included a move to a “zoning” system, and the introduction of the infrastructure levy. While the zoning proposals appear to have been abandoned, the wish to speed up local plan-making remains.
According to the consultation, the new-style plans would be streamlined and focused on the strategic vision for the relevant area, with national development management policies replacing any local policies which would otherwise largely echo their national counterparts, such as policies relating to the green belt.
Plans would pass through three new “gateway” assessments during their preparation:
- Gateway 1 An advisory assessment designed to support the early diagnosis of potential issues and ensure that the plan sets off in the right direction.
- Gateway 2 An advisory assessment designed to facilitate the early resolution of potential soundness issues, ensure legal and procedural compliance, and monitor and track progress.
- Gateway 3 A final check prior to submission designed to validate that key requirements have been met. A plan that fails the gateway 3 checks will not be submitted for examination.
- It is anticipated that the Planning Inspectorate would be involved in some way with each of the three gateway checks in a manner that it has not been previously.
The examination of plans is also to be sped up significantly. The consultation states that plans should not be at examination for more than six months – with a possible three-month extension for necessary modifications.
Neither the plan preparation, nor the examination timescales will be set out in statute or secondary legislation. Instead, the timetable would largely be advisory and implemented through changes to Planning Inspectorate guidance. Nonetheless, the desire to shave some five years off the average time it takes to prepare a local plan is certainly ambitious.
The only part of the consultation that gives any indication as to how this might be achieved, is the chapter that deals with the required evidential standards and the tests of soundness.
The consultation acknowledges that these changes will require further changes to the National Planning Property Framework, which will need further consultation. However, the overall direction of travel appears to be:
- That national policy guidance will set out what constitutes an appropriate evidence base for a local plan more clearly than it does at present;
- A policy distinction will be drawn between evidence produced and submitted to demonstrate that the plan is sound and legally compliant, and the information used to inform the plan;
- National policy guidance will be clarified to state that evidence should only normally be discussed and argued against at examination where there is a significant and demonstrable reason for doing so;
- Clearer guidance will be provided to reinforce the existing national policy that a plan should represent an appropriate strategy for the area, but not necessarily the most appropriate strategy; and
- There will be further examination of whether a change to the test of soundness would be beneficial.
However, none of these proposals seem to address the political nature of the plan-making system, nor how contentious site allocations can be. It is these factors, together with the uncertainty caused by frequent changes to national planning policy, that can bog down local plans. The proposed changes to the system do not address these issues, leading some to question how effective they will be.
The transition to the new system is likely to be a long one. Local councils will be able to submit plans under the existing system until 30 June 2025 and the secondary legislation required to support the preparation of plans under the new system are unlikely to be ready until Autumn 2024. As a result, councils unlikely to be able to meet the 2025 deadline will be unable to start preparing a new-style plan until autumn next year at the earliest.
Permitted development rights
The second consultation is no less significant than the first. It proposes the liberalisation of the existing permitted development regime and introduces some new PDRs for good measure.
The consultation includes further liberalisation of PDRs for commercial buildings, industrial buildings and open markets and a new proposed right for the creation of open prisons. However, the main proposals include changes to rights permitting conversion to residential, and to agricultural PDRs.
Residential rights
Changes include:
- Replacing existing prior approvals for design or external appearance with a prior approval relating to whether the requirements of the relevant local design codes have been met.
- The floorspace restrictions on many PDRs are to be either doubled or removed entirely. For example: the floorspace restrictions for Class MA rights are, as a minimum, to be doubled to 3,000 sq m; the floorspace restrictions for Class M rights are, as a minimum, to be doubled to 300 sq m; and the floorspace and dwelling number restrictions for Class Q rights are also to be expanded, allowing a maximum of 1,000 sq m to be converted, divided between up to 10 homes of either 100 sq m or 150 sq m minimum size.
- Other restrictions on existing PDRs are also to be relaxed. For example, the requirement that buildings converting under Class MA must be vacant for at least three continuous months immediately prior to the date of the application for prior approval is to be removed. The government is also reviewing the requirements for Class Q rights, with proposals for extending the rights to agricultural buildings that are no longer part of an agricultural unit, and buildings that are predominantly rural in nature, but not solely or completely in agricultural use.
- The government is also proposing a new PDR permitting conversions from hotels (and other C1 uses) to residential use.
- There are also proposals to allow a significant number of the PDRs allowing conversion to residential on Article 2(3) land, from which they are currently excluded.
Agricultural rights
Changes include:
- Widening the scope of non-residential uses to which buildings can be converted to include sports and recreation and other uses.
- Allowing buildings to be used for the processing of raw goods produced on the site and which are to be sold on the site (excluding livestock).
- Increasing the floorspace limits for buildings that can be converted and allowing mixed uses for the first time.
- Broadening and simplifying the process for a wide range of “pure” agricultural PDRs on existing holdings.
Nature-based solutions
The final part of the second consultation comprises a Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs-led call for evidence on “nature-based solutions, farm efficiency projects, and diversification”.
The government is gathering evidence in relation to nature-based mitigation schemes and the application of environmental impact assessment and Habitat Regulation assessments to the planning system. It is asking for submissions over the guidance, policy, or legislative changes that could help to provide a more supportive framework for these types of planning applications and whether specific PDRs could be helpful for bringing projects forward.
Similar questions are also asked about planning applications relating to slurry storage and water management, as well as in relation to wider farm diversification measures.
From the tone of the call for evidence, it appears the introduction of a specific PDR for nutrient mitigation schemes is being seriously considered by both DEFRA and DLUHC. It also hints that a wider review of agricultural PDRs could be under way.
More to follow
It appears as if the government’s enthusiasm for planning consultations continues unabated. While the local plan changes will require the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to obtain royal assent before they can be taken forward, the changes to PDRs could happen more quickly. It appears that the summer of planning reform will be followed by an interesting, and busy, autumn.
Nicola Gooch is a partner in the planning team at Irwin Mitchell
