YRPS Insight: Edition Eight - Flipbook - Page 26
The Government released its long-awaited White Paper
on Planning, ‘Planning for the Future’ in August. Whilst
there has been plenty of issues to warrant media coverage
in recent months the White Paper did receive some
commentary when it was released, most of which was
focused on the loss of local involvement in planning
decisions. However, now many have had the opportunity
to digest the content of the paper before the consultation
period closed at the end of October, and there is concern
that it will have a negative impact on the delivery of
homes and infrastructure in the north of the country.
PLANNING FOR
WHO’S FUTURE’?
What does the Government’s White Paper
mean for the North of the country?
Significantly the paper proposes a nationally determined
and binding housing requirement for Local Authorities, a
return to top down imposed figures. The target is intended
to deliver the national housebuilding target of 300,000
homes per year and early analysis of this proposal suggests
that this could result in a reduction in the targets in the
north of the country. Therefore, whilst the White Paper is
strongly focused on delivery of privately developed new
housing this could in fact be frustrated in region where
the housing numbers provided for in emerging local plans
have already been reduced in recent years in response
to the introduction of the ‘standard methodology’. The
result could be that local authorities need to allocate very
few new sites for residential development in their new
local plans based on existing permissions.
Whilst under the White Paper proposed housing
allocations may look very different, with a key proposal
being the simplification of the development management
process, there remains the potential to restrict new
housing allocations. It is suggested that new Local Plans
identify three types of land: ‘growth areas- suitable for
substantial development’, ‘renewal areas- suitable for
development’ that could include ‘gentle densification’ and
‘protected areas’. There is, therefore, the potential for less
‘growth areas’ identified.
There is also concern around the proposals to introduce
a ‘Consolidated Infrastructure Levy’, or tax on value, in
place of the current Community Infrastructure Levey and
Section 106 provisions. The paper suggests a nationally
set charge on a proportion of the final development value
based on an applicable rate at the point that planning
is granted (or a charge on the assessment of sales value
where the development is not sold). Acknowledging that in
some cases this will not be viable a value based minimum
threshold is suggested, below which the levy will not be
charged, reflecting average build costs per square metre,
with a small fixed allowance for land costs.
Development projects tend to realise greater values
the further south you travel down the country. There is,
therefore, concern that a nationally based threshold will
result in less income being secured by local authorities in
the northern regions with potentially less investment in
necessary infrastructure, such as schools and highways.
The proposals also prioritise affordable housing, with
developers netting this off the levy where this is delivered
on site. Again, raising concerns that there will be reduced
funding for other infrastructure.
The CIL and section 106 provisions that are in place
currently are generally complex to negotiate and, in
many cases, render developments in the region unviable.
Although recent changes to national guidance that
require consideration to be given to ‘existing use value’
are tending to result in greater levels of contribution. A
blanket approach is unlikely, therefore, to be responsive to
local market conditions.
The White Paper presents a number of ideas and options for
reform rather than any concrete proposals and so further
consultation on the topic is inevitable and welcomed. In
reality, the final reforms could well look very different to
those put forward in the paper.
Helen Marks | helen.marks@youngsrps.com