The purpose of the NPPF is to streamline planning bureaucracy, by condensing 44 planning policy statements and guidance notes (and thousands of pages) into a single 59-page document. It also:

1. Contains the economic, environmental and social planning policies for England;

2. Sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they are expected to be applied; and

3. Must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans.

The central theme of the NPPF is the “presumption in favour of sustainable development.”

The definition of “sustainable development” has been expanded so that it now includes reference to the social and environmental benefits of development. It includes five “guiding principles” of sustainable development, as set out in the UK Sustainable Development Strategy: living within the planet’s environmental limits; ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly.

The NPPF lists 12 key planning principles that should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-taking. Planning should:

1. Be genuinely plan-led;

2. Not simply be about scrutiny;

3. Be pro-actively driven and support sustainable economic development;

4. Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity;

5. Take account of the different roles and character of different areas;

6. Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate;

7. Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and reducing pollution;

8. Encourage the effective use of land by re-using brownfield land;

9. Promote mixed use developments;

10. Conserve heritage assets;

11. Actively manage patterns of growth; and

12. Take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing.

Some key points

1. The NPPF encourages the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (i.e brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value;

2. Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of town centres. The NPPF retains the “sequential approach” to planning applications for main town centre uses. This requires most central town centre sites to be developed for shops, leisure and offices before out-of-town sites. However, an exemption to the sequential approach is included for small scale rural offices or other small scale rural development;

3. Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should identify and annually update a supply of sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements, with an additional buffer of 5 per cent to ensure choice and competition in the market. Where there has been a history of persistent under-delivery of housing, LPAs should increase the buffer to 20 per cent to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choices and competition in the market for land. However, there is recognition that housing land supply can best be met through new settlements or extensions to existing towns and villages;

4. The NPPF continues to protect land designated as green belt. As with previous green belt policy, inappropriate development should not be approved except in special circumstances. New buildings within the green belt, subject to a limited number of exceptions, are inappropriate. It should be noted that renewable energy projects will often be inappropriate development, and in such cases, the developer will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed; and

5. Transitional provisions have been introduced to give local authorities a 12 month reprieve (until 26 March 2013), provided that the local development plan does not conflict too much with the NPPF.

The future

It is absolutely clear that we have entered a new planning era, although it will be some time before we see its full effect. There will undoubtedly be a period of uncertainty while LPAs try to interpret and then apply the transitional provisions.

Through the NPPF, the Government is attempting to support employment and growth, whilst serving the interests of local communities and the environment by keeping the relevant checks and balances in place. Development powers have been transferred to local authorities, and local communities will be able to decide where new homes (and the infrastructure to support them) should be built.

The statement included further details of the NewBuy Guarantee scheme, which was initially announced as part of the Government’s Housing Strategy, and is expected to become available from Spring 2012. Further details on the scheme are available here.

The NewBuy Guarantee scheme, which has been developed jointly by the Home Builders Federation and Council of Mortgage Lenders, aims to assist buyers to buy a new-build home if they have a deposit of at least 5 per cent. The scheme will allow eligible borrowers to secure up to a 95 per cent Loan-to-Value mortgage on new-build houses and flats from participating builders in England. All mortgage lenders and house builders have been invited to sign up to the scheme. Further details are here.

The Government is supporting the scheme to help those home buyers who are unable to purchase a property because they do not have a large enough deposit.

The scheme applies to new-build residential properties (priced up to £500,000) that are being sold for the first time or for the first time in their current form. The scheme is for primary ownership only and is not available for shared ownership, shared equity purchases, second homes, investors, or buy-to-let. To be eligible for the scheme, purchasers must be UK citizens or have a right to remain indefinitely in the UK.

The Government anticipates that the scheme will help 100,000 households buy a new home.

The Government is asking for opinions on regulations that affect the private rented sector, social housing, construction, and the building regulations. Full details are here.

In the Government’s press release on the issue, Communities Minister Baroness Hanham said:

“For years builders, businesses, landlords and residents have had to navigate an increasingly complicated set of rules and regulations to do things by the book. Now we’re giving them the chance to tell us what they would like us to change so that building a new home or property is a smoother ride.”

Interested parties have four more weeks to put forward their views and this can be done on the Red tape challenge website. This website has full details of the challenge and you can also read the opinions of those who have already commented (and respond to those comments if you so wish.)

The note provides an overview of what Build Now, Pay Later is, the advantages it brings to housebuilders, and the terms which government departments will ask developers to bid on when they are disposing of their land.

The Build Now, Pay Later scheme is intended to make it easier for developers to manage their development cash flow, as they do not have to pay upfront for the government-owned land. Housebuilders will pay for the land after they have started work on the new homes, meaning that they can start building immediately.

The scheme has been launched in conjunction with the Government’s decision to release public sector land for housebuilding, with the aim of building 100,000 new homes by 2015. The need for new homes is urgent, as recent figures have revealed that housebuilding is now at its lowest levels since the 1920s (click here for more details.)

In its note, the Government has admitted that Build Now, Pay Later is not appropriate for all sites, and will tend to be more beneficial on larger more complicated sites which will require significant capital investment to unlock.

There are two Build Now, Pay Later models: Phased Payments and Risk Sharing.

The Phased Payments model is where the land value or base price is apportioned across a number of phases with specified dates for when payments will be made. The housebuilder bears less initial risk, as payments are linked to completed or sold phases. The timing of payments and percentage of land value paid on completion of each phase can be varied to suit the risk characteristics of the site.

The Risk Sharing model allows housebuilders to share the risk and reward from the movement in house prices and the subsequent revenue generated. However, the risk of fluctuations in development costs will be borne by the housebuilder.

Increasing housebuilding is one of the Government’s key objectives in its Growth Review, and it is also hoped that the Build Now, Pay Later will create and sustain thousands of jobs in the construction sector.

The HBF’s New Housing Pipeline Q3 2011 report also said that planning permission was granted for only 29,059 homes across England in the same period – a 50 per cent drop in the average number of home approvals in 2006 and 2007.

The report went on to state that the number of homes being built is now lower than at any time since the 1920s and called on the Government to continue with its proposed planning reforms in order to address the current housing crisis.

However, the Government’s planning reforms may be facing a serious challenge. In its review of the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NAPF) this week, the parliamentary Communities and Local Government Committee said that the Government’s proposals to reform the planning system should be re-written to give greater protection to the environment and to ensure that developers build on brownfield land and within town centres. The Committee also said that an adequate definition of “sustainable development” was missing from the proposals and put forward its own alternative definition. Full details of the Committee’s report are here.

The Committee claimed that the default answer of “yes” in the planning reforms, which gives the go-ahead to development unless the adverse effects “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits, should be removed as it could lead to poorly planned, unsustainable development.

The Government has said that it will “carefully consider” the new definition of sustainable development offered by the Committee, so we shall see what happens.

The Government is due to implement its final version of the NAPF in early 2012.

The Act includes measures to reform the planning system, to ensure decisions about housing are taken at a local level, and to generally increase the power of local government and local communities. David Marsden, Head of Real Estate at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin, looks at the particular implications for planning here.

The Government has produced a ‘plain English’ guide to the Localism Act, which clearly summarises all of the main ideas contained in the Act and what effect they will have on local communities.

Over the coming weeks and months, the measures laid out in the Localism Act will begin to come into force. Many of the measures are expected to be in place by April 2012, although there is no definite timetable yet.

New figures show that government-owned land could be used to deliver 83,500 new homes, instead of the previously announced number of 50,000.

Earlier this year, the Government announced that it would build up to 100,000 new homes on public land by 2015 under the ‘build now, pay later’ scheme. Under this scheme, developers do not have to pay for the government-owned land they are building on until the homes are complete, thus easing pressure on cash flow. Click here for further details of this scheme.

A further announcement on brownfield site release is expected to be announced by the Government in its housing strategy, which is due to be published later this month and before the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Growth Review on 29 November 2011.

The Bill, which was introduced to Parliament in December last year, will devolve more power from central government to local councils, so that communities have more control over housing and planning decisions in their areas.

Once Royal Assent is received (which should be a formality) and the relevant sections come into force, the Bill will, amongst other things:

1. Abolish the Regional Strategies;

2. Force local planning authorities (LPAs) to co-operate with each other on issues which cross council boundaries, particularly in relation to sustainable development and the use of land for strategic infrastructure.

3. Make changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy, so that LPAs will have greater control over the setting of their charges;

4. Introduce Neighbourhood development orders and plans (so local communities can specify where they think development should take place and how the local area should be planned);

5. Require developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for certain developments;

6. Introduce new enforcement measures for LPAs, including the power to reject retrospective planning applications; extend time limits on taking enforcement action against people who conceal unauthorised development; set new financial penalties; and increase powers to deal with unauthorised advertisements;

7. Abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission, so that its functions can be transferred to a new unit in the Planning Inspectorate and decisions can be made by democratically elected (and accountable) government minsters; and

8. Reform the delivery of social housing.

Royal Assent could be given as early this week, but, if not, certainly before the end of the year; the Bill is then expected to come into force in April 2012 (although confirmation is still awaited.)

UPDATE: The Localism Bill received Royal Assent on 15 November 2011.

The Compulsory Purchase Association (CPA) has been lobbying the government to change the rules since 2008. The CPA’s proposals have now been adopted in an amendment to the Localism Bill which is due to become law later this year.

The main aims of the proposals are to close a loophole that allows owners to claim large amounts of money in “hope value” and to simplify the way compensation is calculated.

At present councils have to work out the value of the site being compulsorily purchased by working out how much it would have been worth when the CPO was first proposed. In some situations this could have been more than five years ago.  Under the proposed changes the valuation dates will not be linked to the when the CPO was first proposed.

The changes will also close the loophole which has seen councils paying excessive prices for sites following long legal battles.

The CPA argue that the changes will save councils time, money and possible legal claims.

The decision is important because it was Cala’s planning application that led to it launching a judicial review at the High Court against Eric Pickles’ decision to effectively abolish the Regional Strategies in 2010. Click here for full details.

Neither Cala Homes nor its lawyers have yet to make an announcement on the decision, but it could launch a challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The National Housing Federation (NHF) has warned that over the next ten years, home ownership in the UK will fall to its lowest level since the mid-1980s.

The NHF’s prediction follows the publication of the Oxford Economics’ ‘Housing Marketing Analysis’ report in July 2011, which paints a pretty bleak future for the housing market.

Owner occupation rates are predicted to drop to just 63.8 per cent over the next decade – the result of high property prices, strict lending requirements by banks and building societies, and the need for large deposits from borrowers. This, combined with rising rents (forecasted to increase by 19.8 per cent by 2016), long social housing waiting lists (currently standing at 4.5m people) and fewer new homes being built, all suggests a difficult future for a whole generation of people.

So, how can we avoid this bleak future for housing?

With only 67 per cent of the UK population owning their own home, an increase in the construction of new houses is required. In 2011, only 105,000 new homes were built in England – the lowest level since the 1920s – and residential planning permissions are dropping. Thing have got so bad that last week Grant Shapps, the housing minister, said that local authorities should encourage their residents to live on boats! He even said that new moorings could be eligible for the New Homes Bonus.

With so many property organisations calling for more housebuilding, for more unused public land to be made available to housing associations, and for more residential planning permissions, it will be interesting to see whether the Government sticks to its proposed planning reforms, particularly in the face of opposition from anti-growth organisations and, according to a survey by the ConservativeHome website, even a majority of Conservative Party activists.

A ‘right to light’ is an easement that gives a landowner the right to receive natural light through defined apertures (e.g. windows) in buildings on their land. These rights are valuable, as they give landowners (and their purchasers) certainty that they will continue to enjoy natural light.

The review will look at whether the current law on how rights to light are acquired and enforced provides an appropriate balance between those landowners who benefit from the rights and those who want to develop in the vicinity of the land. It will also examine the inter-relationship between the planning system and rights to light, and whether the remedies available to the courts are “reasonable, sufficient and proportionate.”

The announcement of the review is good news for developers.

Developers have faced a lot of uncertainty since the September 2010 ruling in HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney, when the High Court awarded an injunction against a developer who had infringed the right to light of a neighbouring commercial property, despite the development having been completed. The Court held that the payment of damages was not necessarily an appropriate recompense for interfering with a landowner’s right to light; consequently, the removal of a structure, or part of a structure, is now possible. The ruling highlights how important it is that developers resolve any potential rights of light issues before commencing their development. 

However, it should be noted that the ruling didn’t change the law and, therefore, the decision in each case will always be dependent on its own facts. Further details of the ruling are here.

Whilst the review is welcome, any change to the law is some way off.

The review will begin in 2012, with a consultation paper expected to be published in 2013. A final report and draft legislation could be available by late 2014 or early 2015.

Greyfort Properties (G) had submitted an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development that would allow it to carry out the development of 19 flats on the site under a permission granted in 1974, without submitting a fresh planning application.

G had obtained planning permission in 1974 for the development. However, the planning permission included a condition that “before any work is commenced on the site, the ground floor levels of the building hereby permitted shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing.” The planning permission stipulated that work had to begin within five years. In 1978 – four years from the date of the permission – G carried out some access work, and argued that this work amounted to commencement of the development, meaning that the planning permission remained in force (and therefore a fresh application would not be needed.) However, the planning inspector said that the access works had been carried out in breach of the planning condition, and that the works did not amount to commencement of the development. The planning inspector’s decision was upheld by the High Court.

G appealed this ruling at the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that, although preparatory works relating to access for the development were carried out on the site in 1978 within the five-year time limit, these works did not implement the planning permission because the ground levels’ condition had not been satisfied.

The usual rule is that development must commence within three years of the grant of planning permission. Typically, if a developer didn’t want to actively proceed with a development, but wanted to ensure that the planning permission did not expire, they would dig a few holes, maybe lay some foundations and ask the planning officer to write a letter stating that development had commenced.  They could then ‘mothball’ the site until there was a good commercial reason to proceed.

During the recession, I expect some developers have been delaying commencement of developments. This decision reminds us that it is not just a matter of physically commencing development before the end of the three-year period that is important, but that the pre-commencement conditions must also be dealt with before commencement of building works. It can take some months to have the pre-commencement conditions approved, so any developer sitting on a planning permission should not leave it until the last minute to look into this.

Stevenage Borough Council’s expansion plans, which were part of the East of England Plan, were rejected because its housing targets were dependant on housing growth by North Hertfordshire District Council. However, following the Government’s announcement that it intended to abolish the Regional Strategies, North Hertfordshire District Council suspended work on the joint project. Further details are here.

During the inquiry into Stevenage Borough Council’s housing plans, North Hertfordshire District Council informed the planning inspector that its new plans would not provide for Stevenage’s planned growth, meaning that the growth of the town would be undeliverable.

However, in the long-running Cala Homes case, the Court of Appeal ruled that local councils cannot take into account the Government’s intention to abolish the Regional Strategies when formulating planning policies (although abolition was capable of being a “material consideration” on certain occasions.) This has formed the basis for Stevenage Borough Council’s legal challenge to the planning inspector’s decision.

The Government wants to remove uncertainty from the planning system for local people by ensuring that every planning application is dealt with as quickly as possible.

Under the proposals, local people will be able to see how their councils perform against the ‘guarantee’ by using information provided by the councils. Currently thousands of planning applications are held up in the planning system, leaving local householders, companies and developers “in planning limbo.” For example, between April 2010 and April 2011, approximately 3,200 planning applications took longer than 52 weeks to be decided – a statistic that the Government wants to eradicate.

The Government also intends to create more openness, by requiring councils to publish details of their planning performance on at least a quarterly basis, so that local people can see whether their council is meeting the requirements of the planning guarantee. The Department for Communities and Local Government will also publish a regular report on the performance of individual councils.

The Planning Minister, Greg Clark, has already written to local authorities signalling the Government’s intentions.

The next step

1. The Government will provide full details of how the planning guarantee will work in a consultation paper, which is likely to be published in autumn 2011.

2. The Government will publish a further consultation paper later this year on reducing the amount of information required to accompany all planning applications.

Section 15 of the Commons Act 2006 provides that anyone can apply to register land as a town or village green where “a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, have indulged as of right in lawful sports and pastimes on the land for a period of at least 20 years.” In the past, those who have objected to a development on open land have been able to delay it (or even prevent it) by making an application to have the land registered as a town and village green (TVG application).

Under the proposals, the criteria for registration would remain the same, but new restrictions would be placed on land that can be the subject of a TVG application.

Defra’s proposals include the following:

1. Giving the registration authorities (RAs) the power to reject TVG applications at an early stage if insufficient evidence has been submitted, or if there is strong evidence that the application would fail to satisfy the criteria for registration;

2. Allowing landowners to make a statutory declaration, registrable with the RA and renewable every ten years, that any use of land is with their permission. This would prevent any use of land “as of right”;

3. The introduction of a ”character” test, so that only land which is unenclosed by fencing, open (i.e. not covered in dense scrub, trees and vegetation) and uncultivated would be eligible for registration;

4. Taking into account whether the land that is the subject of the TVG application is in the planning system. Land which is subject to a planning application or planning permission, or which was designated for development (or as a green space) in a local or neighbourhood plan, could not be registered as a TVG; and

5. Requiring applicants to pay an application fee. Each registration authority would be able to set its own fee, subject to a prescribed ceiling of £1,000. Fees could be refundable if the application were granted. This may deter some applications that are simply designed to delay developments.

The proposals in the consultation will not prevent the protection of any existing registered greens, and any changes to the registration system will not bring the designation of new greens to an end. However, the restrictions will be welcomed by landowners and developers, who have had to put up with costly delays when faced with TVG applications.

The consultation closes on 17 October 2011 and applies to England only.

On 1 July 2011, the High Court ruled that developer HelioSlough could build a large rail freight interchange on green belt land in Radlett, despite opposition from the Council and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Full details of the ruling and background to the dispute are here.

The Council had been set to appeal the ruling, but changed its mind after the Secretary of State announced that he would not seek leave to appeal.

However, this isn’t necessarily the end of the line for this legal dispute. The Council, which has reportedly spent nearly £1m in trying to thwart this scheme, is still opposed to it, and the matter will now be referred back to the Secretary of State who will have to re-examine his earlier findings.

If the Secretary of State’s decision goes against the Council, it may still decide to launch another legal appeal.

This is an important decision for local people affecting a proposed large scale development near Stevenage.

The claimant local authorities challenged the decision of the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (SoS) to grant planning permission to build 3,000 homes and the associated infrastructure  on land to the west of Stevenage.

The SoS granted permission subject to a section 106 agreement, including various obligations such as the provision of schools. The developer and the local authorities were unable to reach an agreement on the terms of the section 106 agreement and, as such, the developer submitted a section 106 undertaking which in its view met the inspector’s requirements. The undertaking included provisions concerning a temporary schools accommodation strategy (“Strategy”) which provided education to pupils occupying the first dwellings before the creation of permanent schools.  The effect of these provisions was that there would be a bar on development until the Strategy had been submitted to the local authority, and either this had not been approved within 4 months or it had been approved but subject to conditions which were unacceptable to the landowners.

There was no time limit on the bar, but equally no positive obligation on the developer to submit the Strategy. Where the Strategy was not agreed, a different bar to development came into effect until statutory proposals had been published or approved, although if no proposals were published or approved within 18 months after the grant of planning permission, the bar on development would cease. The SoS granted permission subject to conditions.

The local authorities claimed that the SoS had erred by:

1. Ignoring a policy on renewable energy (ENG1) and which has been included in the East of England Plan (EEP) requiring developments of more than 10 dwellings to obtain 10 per cent of their energy from decentralised and renewable sources; and

2. Considering the developer’s undertaking relating to the Strategy as adequate.

Decision

The local authorities had to prove that the SoS had ignored ENG1 and that the absence of reference to the policy was not sufficient evidence that it had been ignored. There was a general reference to the EEP, but it was clear from the conditions imposed that the SoS had not taken it into account. The terms of the conditions had only been tweaked so that these would not meet the targets of the ENG1 policy. On the evidence, the SoS had ignored ENG1 and this was sufficient basis to quash the planning permission.

Making the date on lifting the bar to development relate to the grant of planning permission rather than the submission of the Strategy meant that there was a gap in which the developer could avoid its obligations (i.e. by putting in a Strategy which was not agreed.) The SoS had misunderstood the effect of the proviso, the purpose of which was to protect the developer from delays  by the local authority. The permission would be quashed on this reasoning also.

This ongoing legal battle began in August 2006, when HelioSlough submitted its original planning application to St Albans City and District Council. The Council rejected the planning application in 2007 and again in 2009, citing that the scheme was an inappropriate development on green belt land and that the developer had failed to show that the scheme could be built sustainably.

Although HelioSlough successfully appealed the decision, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, overruled the appeal in July 2010 on the grounds that the rail freight terminal could be built at an alternative site at Colnbrook in Slough, which would have less impact on green belt land.

In June 2011, HelioSlough launched judicial review proceedings in the High Court to challenge this decision.

The High Court handed down its decision last week (1 July 2011), ruling in favour of HelioSlough. This means that the decision to refuse planning permission has been overturned, essentially on a “legal technicality.” HelioSlough will now re-apply for planning permission and has publicly urged Eric Pickles to support it.

However, this may not be the end of the road for this long-running legal battle. Eric Pickles and St Albans City and District Council have until 11 July 2011 to challenge the decision.

UPDATE: St Albans City and District Council has announced that it will not appeal the High Court ruling. Click here for more details.

Stevenage is designated as a major housing growth point in the East of England Plan. The Plan, which was adopted in 2008, involved Stevenage Borough Council linking with neighbouring North Hertfordshire District Council to extend Stevenage’s boundaries by building 9,600 homes to the west and north of the town. However North Hertfordshire District Council withdrew from the planned expansion in June 2010 after the incoming Coalition Government announced the abolition of the Regional Strategies through the Localism Bill.

Subsequently, North Hertfordshire District Council began work on its own housing targets, whilst Stevenage Borough Council pressed ahead with its expansion plans.

North Hertfordshire District Council and Hertfordshire County Council submitted a joint legal challenge to quash Stevenage Borough Council’s expansion plans. The councils complained that the Secretary of State had failed to impose conditions that would deliver the requirements of the Government’s carbon dioxide and energy performance policy in the East of England Plan (i.e. that developments of more than 10 dwellings must secure 10 per cent of their energy from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources.)

The Court quashed the decision to grant planning permission, agreeing that (1) the conditions were not compliant with the renewable energy policies in the East of England Plan, and also that (2) the permission failed to secure the provision of temporary school accommodation that the then Secretary of State had intended.

The application will now go back to Eric Pickles, the current Secretary of State, for reconsideration. He could decide to re-open the inquiry or refuse planning permission.

Mr Shapps said that by Autumn 2011, every Government department with significant landbanks will publish plans to release thousands of acres of previously-developed land to housebuilders.

And to make sure that these housebuilding projections are met, the Public Expenditure Committee will carefully scrutinise each government department’s plans, to make sure every possible site is made available for housebuilding. The Government will also encourage local councils to also make their unused land available for development.

This announcement follows the launch of the Government’s ‘Build Now, Pay Later’ initiative in March this year. Under this scheme, developers will be able to build homes on Homes and Communities Agency sites without paying for the land in advance. The first six sites being developed under this new scheme are in Hemel Hempstead, Basingstoke, Tower Hamlets, Northampton, Rushcliffe and Telford. It is anticipated that these developments will create up to 3,000 new homes.

The Government’s announcement is to be welcomed by housebuilders. As the Government holds a huge amount of land, it is right that it is now freeing this land up to help alleviate the housing shortage. It is hoped that the ‘Build Now, Pay Later’ scheme will also help struggling housebuilders to get their developments up and running.

After this date there will be a significant reduction in the annual investment allowance for qualifying expenditure which potentially could result in lost 100% up-front tax relief.

Claiming on the balance not covered by AIA at rates applicable to the general, special or short-life asset pools spreads the claim for tax relief over much longer periods.

Here is an example I’ve seen from accountants Smith & Williamson:

Using an example of a 30 June 2012 year end, the table below shows the effect of delaying expenditure until after 1 April 2012 or 6 April 2012 on the maximum amount of AIA claimable for that year.

Businesses need to consider more than just the availability of allowances when incurring expenditure, however this change in allowances is significant enough to justify very careful consideration of when to incur qualifying expenditure.

For more information, please email me on shimon.shaw@mablaw.com.

Cala had claimed that the Government’s intention to revoke the Regional Strategies could not be a lawful material consideration for local authorities when making decisions on planning applications. The Court of Appeal has rejected this claim.

This ruling is the latest in the long-running legal dispute between Cala and the Government, which stretches back to last year. Click here for full details.

Although Cala lost the appeal, the Court of Appeal praised the clarification that the case has brought to this contentious issue. Also, whilst finding that it would be wrong to say that the intention to revoke the Regional Strategies could never be a lawful material consideration when considering planning applications, the Court of Appeal qualified this by saying that it would only be in extreme cases when the intention to revoke would constitute a material consideration.

The ruling, therefore, leaves the door open for housebuilders to launch appeals over some planning decisions.

The Zero Carbon Homes standard will apply to the building of all new homes that are started after 2016. However, the Housing minister Grant Shapps has made clear that housebuilders will only have to ensure that emissions from the homes themselves (e.g. those from heating, ventilation, hot water, fixed lighting and building services), as covered by the Building Regulations, are reduced to zero; housebuilders will not be responsible, as had been suggested in the past, for emissions from household appliances used in the house  - or, as Mr Shapps said, housebuilders “should not be responsible for the amount of television the families who buy their homes watch or the number of cups of tea they make each day.”

Mr Shapps also said that in order to “deliver a realistic and effective approach to zero carbon”, the Government would:

1. Include “tough” standards for fabric energy efficiency (e.g. insulation, glazing) in any future changes to the Building Regulations;

2. Consult on the Zero Carbon Hub’s recommendations on the levels for other on-site carbon reduction levels; and

3. Work with the housebuilding industry on options for a regime for off-site measures (e.g. community energy schemes.)

Mr Shapps concluded his announcement by saying that the Government had succeeded in “nail(ing) down a definition for zero carbon homes”, whilst not “piling unfair costs on housebuilders.” 

Although there is still more work to be done on the definition of “zero carbon homes”, it is thankfully becoming clearer. Housebuilders will welcome the Government’s decision to exclude emissions from domestic appliances.

The 12-month Planning Guarantee, which is designed to speed up development and cut bureaucracy, will cover the “entire planning process”, including appeals made to the Planning Inspectorate.

According to the Home Builders Federation, it took on average 15½ months for housebuilders to be granted planning permission in 2008, so the Government is keen to reduce this timescale.

Mr Shapps also announced yesterday that the final details on the definition for ‘zero-carbon home’ will be made available shortly, and that the Government will not be creating a local standards framework, which would have allowed local authorities to choose their own local planning policies. This decision follows fears that devolving control to local authorities may actually increase regulation – something the Government is actively trying to cut across all sectors.

Cala Homes is challenging the Government’s claim that its intention to abolish the Regional Strategies should be considered by local planning authorities when ruling on planning applications.

Cala Homes, which successfully won a judicial review back in November 2010, was defeated in the High Court in February 2011 (click here for full details), but given permission to appeal the ruling.

The appeal began on 5 May and was expected to conclude today (6 May), with the decision reserved until a later date. I will post full details of the ruling in due course.

Four years (from the date of substantial completion) in respect of unauthorised building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land (section 171B(1), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990));

Four years (from the date of the breach) in respect of the unauthorised change of use of any building to use as a single dwelling house (section 171B(2), TCPA 1990); and

Ten years (from the date of the breach) for any other breach of planning control (section 171B(3), TCPA 1990). This includes:

1. A material change of use (other than a change of use to a single dwelling house); and

2. A breach of a planning condition (except a condition relating to use as a single dwelling house

In this case, a landowner (L) obtained planning permission to erect a barn on green belt land subject to a condition that the barn be used only for the storage of hay, straw or other agricultural products. The building was constructed between January and July 2002 and looked like a barn externally, although internally was fitted out as a house. L moved into the building on 9 August 2002 and applied for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (CLUED). A CLUED would be conclusive as to the existing use and any works that have been carried out on the land being lawful. The council refused on the basis that the building was not a house and L had not lived there for 4 years.

L confirmed to the planning inspector that he had deliberately deceived the council when applying for planning permission and he had always intended to use the building as a house. The planning inspector granted the CLUED.

The council appealed and the High Court overturned the planning inspector’s decision.

L appealed to the Court of Appeal who allowed L’s appeal.

The council appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the council’s appeal on the basis of the following:

1. There had been no change of use because the building was not constructed as a barn but as a house. The court doubted whether there could be a change of use under section 171B(2) where there was a departure from the permitted use without there being any actual prior use.

The court also rejected the idea that there was a change of use from ‘no use’ to ‘residential use’. The building had been built to live in and L was about to move in. The court had to consider how a building was used long term in order to establish if  a building was in use;

2. L could not rely on section 171B(2) because of his dishonest conduct. The court looked at the principle that statutes are construed to the effect that no one should be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing, unless there is a contrary intention in the statute. The court considered that it would frustrate the policy of section 171B(2) if the time limits for enforcement were to apply, where the owner has made a deliberate misleading statement. Parliament would not have intended such outcome; and

3. L’s deception did not at the time constitute a criminal offence; however, it would now be an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. L’s deception undermined the planning process and the council could seek to enforce not only on the basis of section 171B(2), but also 171B(1) by invoking the public policy argument.

Comment

The court found that there was no relevant change of use; however, the case also highlights the principle that statutes should be construed to the effect that no one should be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing. The Localism Bill proposes a new section 171B to deal with issues of concealment such as in this case.

The covenant stated that:

“….for the benefit of the adjoining land of the vendor on the west and south sides of the land conveyed, that no building shall be erected on the [land]….”

In October 2006, the Local Authority granted detailed planning permission for residential development in the area. Wimpey commenced works on the land and in May 2007. Wimpey received a letter from the solicitor acting for various people claiming the benefit of the covenant, asking them to stop works on the land on the basis of the covenant.

Proceedings were commenced in 2008 on various grounds, including loss of value and privacy  to properties, risk of flooding, the proposed use was not reasonable even though planning permission had been granted, and it would set a precedent for further modification of the covenant. Wimpey claimed that the practical benefits of the covenant were not of substantial value and that money would be an adequate compensation for the loss and any disadvantage suffered by those with the benefit of the covenants. In addition, Wimpey claimed that the character of the area would not change as a result of the development.

Decision:

The Lands Tribunal decided that it had no power to modify the covenant as Wimpey had failed to make out the grounds in section 84(1)(aa) LPA 1925 (i.e. the covenant impedes some reasonable use of the land and either does not secure any practical benefit of substantial value or advantage, or is contrary to public interest, and money would not be adequate compensation to anyone suffering loss or disadvantage from the discharge or modification of the restriction.)

The Lands Tribunal said:

1. The proposed development was reasonable since the proposed density of the development was only slightly more than the local authority planning inspector’s report;

2. The practical benefits to the objectors were of substantial value and advantage, as their properties were currently overlooked only in a limited way and now enjoy outstanding views over open land to hills in the distance. If the development proceeded  the properties would become suburban in character with the attendant loss of views and privacy;

3. Wimpey had failed to show that increased flooding was not due to their other developments in the area; and

4. the objectors were justified in objecting on the basis that the proposed modification would prove to be a precedent for further modification of the covenant and would allow further development

As such, the covenant was of practical benefit to the objectors by allaying their reasonable fears about increased flooding and high density development. Such benefits were of substantial value.

Comment:

Developers should note this decision, since even though the Land Tribunal’s power to modify a covenant is discretionary, the developer in this instance failed to show that the covenant impeded a reasonable use of the property. Indeed the Lands Tribunal made it clear that they would not have exercised their discretion even if the developer had successfully claimed under section 84(1)(aa) LPA 1925. The developer had ignored the covenant and the objections of the locals in the hope that by altering the character of the land, the Lands Tribunal would allow the development, and it would have been unreasonable for the developer to benefit from ignoring their legal obligations.

The consultation paper, Relaxation of planning rules for change of use from commercial to residential, includes proposals to amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, so that it will be permissible to allow a change of use from Class B (business and industrial uses) to Class C3 (dwelling houses) without having to obtain planning consent.

Under these proposals, more land would become available for housing, by permitting empty commercial buildings to be converted into new homes. This move follows the Chancellor’s announcement in his recent Budget that the Government would consult on proposals to increase the categories of changes of use that can be made without the need to apply for planning permission.

The consultation paper seeks views on a number of areas, including:

1. Whether a change from use class B1 (offices, research and development, and light industry) to C3 (dwelling house) should be allowed without express planning permission (subject to effective measures being put in place to mitigate the risk of homes being built in unsuitable locations);

2. Whether a change of use from classes B2 (general industrial use not within class B1) and B8 (storage and distribution) to C3 should be classed as permitted development (subject to effective measures being put in place to mitigate the risk of homes being built in unsuitable locations); and

3. Whether current permitted development rights that allow a change from class A1 (shops) and A2 (financial and professional services) to a mixed use (including one residential flat) should be widened to allow for more than one dwelling.

The consultation paper also asks for comment on whether the Government has identified all the possible problems/issues that could arise from widening permitted development rights, and what measures might be needed to mitigate against those problems.

The closing date for responses is 30 June 2011.

In the recent Budget, the Chancellor announced that the Government was setting up a new scheme - FirstBuy - which will see the HCA and developers provide loans to eligible first-time buyers, to help them purchase a new-build home and thus get a first foot on the property ladder.

Through the scheme, the Government hopes to help more than 10,000 first-time buyers to buy a new home over the next two years. At the same time, the scheme aims to maintain capacity in the housebuilding industry.

The Prospectus outlines the criteria against which the HCA will assess offers from developers who want to take part in the scheme, including deliverability, the type of property, standards and price. Under the scheme:

1. Eligible first-time buyers will be offered an equity loan of up to 20 per cent of the purchase price. This will be funded equally by the HCA and the developer. The buyers will therefore need to provide at least 80 per cent of the purchase price;

2. The scheme is available to households earning less than £60,000 a year;

3. The maximum property price is expected to be £280,000 (or £300,000 in exceptional cases);

4. The buyer’s mortgage will be secured as a first charge on the property. The HCA and developer will take a second charge over the property;

5. The equity loan will be interest-free for the first five years. From the sixth year, an annual fee of 1.75 per cent will be payable in monthly instalments. This fee will be increased annually in line with the Retail Prices Index, plus 1 per cent; and

6. Each equity loan term is 25 years, but repayment is required on sale of the property.

Full details of the scheme are in the Prospectus.

The HCA is now inviting bids from developers who want to offer new-build properties to eligible first-time buyers. Bidders will be asked to provide anticipated start and completion dates for building schemes and the anticipated dates of unit sales. Developers who offer early build completion dates will score more highly. The Government will not support any schemes which are due to be completed after December 2012. The closing date for bids is 19 May 2011.

The HCA intends to enter into the first contracts with developers by July 2011 and expects the first homes to be available for purchase in August and September 2011.

This environmental assessment will be “voluntary”, but the Government intends to produce one environmental report per region. It will then be consulted on, in line with the process laid down in the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, in order to help local authorities identify issues relevant to their areas and policies or initiatives in the regional strategies which are no longer in effect.

The Government intends to abolish the regional strategies through the Localism Bill, and the environmental assessment process will be carried out during the Bill’s parliamentary progress.

The reforms, which were unveiled in the Localism Bill (click here for more details), are designed to give local people more of a say in the way their neighbourhoods are developed. Through local parish councils or neighbourhood forums, local people will be able to decide which types of development should be given automatic planning permission through a ‘Neighbourhood Development Order’ (NDO). If approved by a local referendum, a council will have to adopt a neighbourhood plan, providing it is line with the council’s wider ambitions for growth in the area.

Local authorities will work with community groups and parish councils in the 17 pilot neighbourhood areas to prepare draft plans and NDOs. These documents will be prepared under the current legal and policy framework, ahead of the new provisions for neighbourhood planning that will be introduced by the Localism Bill when it is enacted. (It is thought that the Bill will be enacted in late 2011 and will come into force in early 2012.)

The 17 ‘front-runners’ include both rural and urban areas. They are:

1. Birmingham City Council – Balsall Heath (Birmingham);

2. Bristol City Council – Lockleaze (Bristol);

3. London Borough of Southwark – Bermondsey;

4. London Borough of Sutton – Hackbridge;

5. North Tyneside Council – North Shields Fish Quay;

6. Wirral Borough Council – Devonshire Park;

7. Allerdale Borough Council – Cockermouth;

8. Blaby District Council – Blaby;

9. Cherwell Borough Council – Banbury;

10. Exmoor National Park Authority – Lynton;

11. Gedling Borough Council – Newstead;

12. Lewes District Council – Ringmer;

13. Northumberland County – Allendale;

14. Shropshire Council – Much Wenlock;

15. Teignbridge District Council – Dawlish;

16. West Dorset District Council – Cerne Abbas; and

17. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead – Bray.

Each of the 17 pilot areas will receive £20,000 towards developing their plan from a £1m fund.

The pilot areas will not be able to put their draft plans and NDOs into effect until the relevant provisions on neighbourhood planning in the Localism Bill come into force.

To address this, the Government announced in its Budget Report and Plan for Growth, which accompanied the Budget Report, that it will:

1. Introduce a new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development and planning applications (that comply with up-to-date planning policies at a national and local level) is ‘yes’. The Government is expected to publish details of the presumption in favour of sustainable development in May 2011, including how it will be integrated into national planning policy;

2. Localise choice about the use of previously developed land, removing nationally imposed targets, which specify the levels of development that should take place on previously developed land, while retaining existing controls on greenbelt land, sites of special scientific interest, and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Government views nationally imposed targets as preventing local communities from exercising choice in respect of local land;

3. Pilot a land auction model, beginning with public sector land. The Budget Report contains no details of the scheme but there are reports that it will involve local authorities asking landowners to submit a binding price at which they would be willing, for a fixed period of time, to sell their plot of land. The local authority would (1) have the right to buy that plot of land at the set price and grant planning permission, as appropriate, and then (2) auction the land to interested developers, whilst keeping any increase in the sale price. The Government intends to pilot the scheme on publicly-owned land within the next 12 months;

4. Introduce measures to streamline the planning applications and related consents regimes, removing bureaucracy from the system and speeding it up. This will include a 12-month guarantee for the processing of all planning applications, including any appeals. The Government will consult in summer 2011 on expanding permitted development rights to include further types of minor commercial development, and consult in autumn 2011 on further measures to streamline the information required to support planning applications. The Government will publish its first annual update on simplifying and streamlining measures in planning and development control in autumn 2011;

5. Ensure a fast-track planning process for major infrastructure applications through the Major Infrastructure Planning system. Major infrastructure applications will be determined within 12 months from the start of the inquiry to the decision; and

6. Consult on proposals to make it easier to convert commercial premises to residential. The Government will consult on a proposal to allow changes of use, without the need to apply for planning permission, to class C3 (residential) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 from class B1 (business); class B2 (general industrial); or class B8 (storage/distribution).

 Also, in the Government’s Plan for Growth, the Government announced that it will:

1. Introduce new powers so that businesses are able to bring forward neighbourhood development plans and neighbourhood development orders, which deem planning permission to have been granted for specific development or specified classes of development within all or part of a neighbourhood area;

2. Introduce, through legislation, a duty on local authorities and public bodies to require them to co-operate on planning issues;

3. Produce a national planning policy framework to attain more development in suitable and viable locations; and

4. Establish up to 21 new Enterprise Zones, where economic growth will be encouraged through financial incentives and a more relaxed planning regime.

We will of course be closely following the implementation of these proposals and will be posting further updates on our website throughout the year.

The three-stage hierarchy in the definition of “zero carbon homes” comprises the following: energy efficiency, carbon compliance and allowable solutions. This Report deals with carbon compliance (i.e. the minimum level of on-site renewable energy generation or directly linked heat networks.)

The Report, which confirms the findings and recommendations of the Zero Carbon Hub’s December 2010 interim report, states the following:

1. Technical issues: The Government’s proposal to reduce carbon emissions for new homes from 2016 by 70 per cent against 2006 standards will not be achievable for many types of dwelling. This is because the main technology for on-site low or zero-carbon electricity generation – solar photovoltaic panels – is not suitable or sufficient for all sites;

2. Commercial issues: Housebuilders will have to meet the additional costs of compliance, and savings will have to be made through reductions in (1) land prices, (2) local authorities’ planning requirements, and (3) regulatory burdens. There are also the problems of new home purchasers being unwilling or unable to pay more for the property, and whether housing development schemes will remain commercially viable; and

3. Other issues: The Report stated the following:

a) It should not be necessary for each individual dwelling on a housing development site to achieve the carbon compliance limit, so long as the aggregate limit is achieved by the development as a whole. This will help to provide more flexibility;

b) The carbon compliance limit should apply to built performance (post-construction) and not designed performance;

c) The Government should take into account the weather assumptions it uses for carbon compliance. This is because regional weather patterns make a significant difference to actual carbon emissions from otherwise identical homes. At present a standard national weather assumption is used to demonstrate compliance; and

d) In the light of the Government’s commitment to ‘localism’, there should be no local power to set a different limit for carbon compliance or to make other related stipulations. However, the Report also provides proposals in the event that the Government decides to allow local powers.

NB: These recommendations do not relate to non-domestic property.

Conclusion

The Report highlights that the housebuilding industry must change significantly in order to achieve the carbon compliance standards. This will inevitably have an impact on all aspects of the housebuilding process, including planning, design, construction and energy products.

The Zero Carbon Hub has called on the DCLG to give a prompt response to its recommendations for carbon compliance, so that the housebuilding industry has sufficient time to prepare to meet the 2016 target for zero-carbon new homes in England.

Full details of the High Court ruling and the background to the case are here.

Cala’s solicitors have said that the hearing is expected to take place in early May 2011.

This is a very important case for housebuilders and developers, and we will continue to provide details of any further developments, as and when they occur.

The publication of the final scheme design follows last November’s consultation on the New Homes Bonus scheme (click here for further details.)

The final scheme design confirms that:

1. The affordable housing definition used for the scheme will be the one set out in Appendix B of Planning Policy Statement 3 (see page 17 of the final scheme design);

2. The New Homes Bonus scheme will apply to homes brought back into use as well as new homes. This fulfils the Government’s pledge in its Coalition Agreement to help bring empty properties back into use;

3. In two-tier authority areas, 80 per cent of the bonus will be paid to the lower tier and 20 per cent to the upper tier, as a starting point for local negotiation. In London, 100 per cent of the bonus will go to the London borough.

4. The New Homes Bonus will be paid alongside the local government finance timetable and it will not be ring-fenced. This means that provisional allocations will be announced in early December and final allocations in early February; and

5. The Council Tax Base Form will be used to calculate increases in housing stock.

However, the final scheme design (and housing minister Grant Shapps in particular) have received criticism from all sides. Developers have complained that the scheme does not go far enough, whilst the Campaign to Protect Rural England has claimed that moves to financially incentivise councils to build more homes could be unlawful. It has suggested that any planning permission given for new housing that is linked to the new homes bonus could conceivably be overturned in a judicial review.

The last thing that developers need is more uncertainty, so it is essential that the Government clarifies the situation as soon as possible.

This decision follows months of uncertainty. In August 2010, Cala Homes launched a legal challenge to the Government’s decision, and in November 2010 the High Court ruled that the abolition of the Regional Strategies was unlawful. Despite this ruling, the Communities and Local Government Secretary, Eric Pickles, and the Government’s chief planning officer wrote to all local planning authorities, informing them of the Government’s intention to still abolish the Regional Strategies in the Localism Bill, and that planning authorities should regard this as a material consideration when making planning decisions. This stance was subsequently legally challenged by Cala Homes and although the High Court granted a temporary stay on this government guidance, Mr Pickles contested the decision. A compromise was reached, with the Department for Communities and Local Government having to formally publicise the existence of Cala Homes’ second legal challenge.

The High Court has now rejected Cala Homes’ second legal challenge.

The Court ruled that Cala Homes’ challenge was “based on an incorrect understanding of what the Secretary of State has actually done.” It said that Mr Pickles had “not enjoined local planning authorities to assume that Regional Strategies have already been revoked”, but had in fact “advise(d) authorities, when making decisions to which such regional policy is relevant, to take into account the fact that the Government intends to promote, through legislation, a reform of the existing planning system in England, the effect of which would be to remove Regional Strategies as an element of the development plan.”

This ruling means that planners can take into account the Government’s intention to abolish the Regional Strategies. However, this may not be the end of the saga… Cala’s solicitors have said that they will be seeking permission to appeal the ruling at the Court of Appeal.

A developer, Millgate Homes (M), had applied for planning permission from Wokingham Borough Council (W) to build 14 homes. W refused the planning permission after an Officer’s Committee Report concluded that the proposed development was inappropriate to the character of the surrounding area and would attract financial contributions to local infrastructure.

M entered into a unilateral undertaking, pursuant to s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, agreeing to make the necessary financial contributions. It then appealed the decision to the planning inspectorate.  

M’s appeal was successful and conditional planning permission was granted. However, the planning inspectorate noted that W had failed to show that financial contributions were necessary in order to satisfy planning policy. Consequently, M requested that W discharge the unilateral undertaking, but W refused, stating that the opinion of the inspectorate did not affect the enforceability of the undertakings. M sought a judicial review of W’s refusal to discharge.

The High Court, ruling in W’s favour, stated that M’s universal undertaking was legally enforceable: it had been entered into voluntarily, without any condition that the obligations should only take effect if a planning inspector indicated that the financial contributions were necessary to make the development acceptable.

Comment

It is common for a developer to submit a s.106 unilateral undertaking to the local authority as part of a planning application. This case shows that there can be some unintended consequences. Here the application was appealed. The Inspector was of the view that the s.106 undertaking was not needed and granted planning permission. The developer was still held to be liable to comply with the s.106 undertaking. 

This could lead to a Catch 22 situation: if the developer submits a s.106 unilateral undertaking before an appeal, then it may help in the grant of planning permission. However, if they do not submit one, they may still get planning permission without it and therefore be in a better position. Developers should satisfy themselves that what a council suggests should go in a s.106 undertaking is lawful; if in doubt, then they may like to consider having a s.106 unilateral undertaking prepared and signed, but not to actually submit it until the views of the Inspector are known.

Even last night (17 January), Labour MPs launched a motion to halt the Bill’s parliamentary progress. The motion was inevitably defeated and the Bill has now passed to the Committee Stage in the House of Commons - but the Bill is causing quite a stir and splitting opinions everywhere.

Local Government and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has called the Bill “a triumph for democracy over bureaucracy”, but, on the opposition benches, his opposite number Caroline Flint calls it a “massive missed opportunity.”

Opinion is certainly divided, inside and outside of Parliament.

Matthew Arnold & Baldwin’s head of Real Estate, David Marsden, has written extensively about the controversy surrounding the abolition of the Regional Strategies and the Bill’s implications for planning.

For those people who are wondering what all the fuss is about, the Department for Communities and Local Government has now published a useful plain-English guidance to the Bill, which summarises all of the main measures proposed in it under the following headings:

1. New freedoms and flexibilities for local government;

2. New rights and powers for communities and individuals;

3. Reform to make the planning system more democratic and more effective;  

4. Reform to ensure that decisions about housing are taken locally; and

5. The overall effect of the Bill

The guide translates the often complex legal language used in the Bill, so that everyone (and not just lawyers) can understand what the Bill proposes.

Now, that should be welcomed by everyone.

The New Housing Pipeline quarterly report, which was published today by the Home Builders Federation (HBF), says that planning permissions dropped from 40,453 in the first quarter of 2010 to 31,553 in the third quarter.

The Home Builders Federation has called the decline “alarming”, but the drop is probably primarily due to the ongoing confusion surrounding the Government’s proposed changes to the planning system (click here for more details.)

As I have been saying in previous posts, and which this new report highlights, it is vital to developers and the housebuilding industry that the Government implements its new policies as soon as possible, so that this policy ‘vacuum’ is filled.

The eagerly-awaited court hearing between the Government and Cala Homes (South) Ltd will help to bring some clarity to the situation, and it is expected to take place in the week beginning 17 January 2011. Cala is seeking a declaration from the High Court that the Government’s intention to revoke the Regional Strategies is unlawful. Click here for more details.

For developers, it’s once again a case of wait and see…

UPDATE: The Localism Bill will have its Second reading in the House of Commons on 17 January 2011. To see how the Localism Bill will impact on planning, please click here.

Clauses 94 and 95 of the Localism Bill deal with the proposed changes to the CIL, which allows local authorities in England and Wales to raise funds from developers undertaking new building projects in their area. The Bill proposes that:

1. Some of the CIL funds should be given back to the neighbourhood where the development is located;

2. CIL funds can be put towards the ongoing costs of infrastructure, as well as the provision of new infrastructure; and

3. Local authorities should be given more control over the setting of their own charging levels. However, Independent examiners will still decide whether the charging schedule is unreasonable, though the local authority in question will be able to decide how to make it reasonable.

In order to be selected for the CIL project (dubbed the ‘Front Runners Project’), the DCLG has said that interested local authorities should ideally:

1. Intend to submit their charging schedule for examination no later than Autumn 2011;

2. Have a proven track record of planning policy competence; and  

3. Have secured the necessary buy-in from corporate, finance and planning functions within the council.

The local authorities that are selected to take part will become some of the first to implement the revised CIL and will be expected to do it as soon as possible, though they will receive support from the Planning Inspectorate. These local authorities will then be encouraged to share learning and good practice across the local government sector.

The deadline for applications is 14 January 2011, with the Project expected to run until March 2011 (although the DCLG has suggested that this may be extended.)

PPAs were formally introduced into the planning system in 2008. They provide a framework to assist local planning authorities (LPAs) and planning applicants/developers in reaching an agreement about how a (usually complex) development should be handled. By encouraging LPAs and developers to work together, PPAs enable them to address any problems at a much earlier stage (thus reducing conflict), and manage the process for determining a planning application within an agreed time-frame, without being constrained by the usual time limits.

This guidance was created following a recent national survey commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government and ATLAS, which found that more than 95 per cent of LPAs supported PPAs. However, the survey also highlighted that there were still barriers which discouraged the wider use of PPAs (for example, concerns about the legal and complicated nature of the agreements, concerns over the level of staffing and resources needed to meet the demands of a PPA, and the reluctance of some developers and public sector bodies to enter into agreements.) Full details are here.

This new guidance addresses these barriers by looking at the content of a PPA, providing advice on the type of PPA that is appropriate for a development, and looking at what makes a PPA successful.

This is one of a number of recent developments that will affect the planning sector - click here to read about the implications of the new Localism Bill on planning, or here to find out further details about a new consultation on government proposals to create a single national policy framework for planning.

The Bill, which aims to transfer more central government powers to local level, includes proposals to significantly reform planning law (see Part 5 of the Bill.)

This article looks at the Bill’s key proposals to shake-up planning law. Of course, the Bill is subject to parliamentary scrutiny, so these proposals may change.

The main proposals are:

1. Abolishing the Regional Strategies. There has been a lot of confusion and contention surrounding this issue. Click here and here for further details;

2. Amending the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Local authorities will have more control over the setting of the CIL. They will have to allocate a proportion of the CIL revenues they receive from developers back to the local neighbourhoods where the development(s) have taken place. This will allow those most directly affected by development to benefit from it. For a related story on the CIL, please click here;

3. Restricting the role of the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate will be unable to re-write local plans, which guide development in local areas. Instead, the Inspectorate will be allowed to assess plans at a public examination, and will have to rule them “sound” before they can be adopted. Amendments will only be suggested at the request of the local authority. Local authorities will be able to suggest changes during the public examination, and will be forced to publish up-to-date information, so that local people can see what planning documents they are preparing;

4. Introduction of “neighbourhood plans.” The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will be amended to introduce neighbourhood planning rights (“neighbourhood development orders”) that allow local communities to permit certain types of development without the need for planning permission. The idea is that parish councils and “neighbourhood forums” can come together to decide where new shops, offices or homes should be built in their area and what green spaces should be protected. All such developments will be voted on by local people in local referendums (more than 50 per cent of the vote is required to approve a development);

5. Abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). This will mean that government ministers will take decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as airports and wind farms;

6. Duty to co-operate. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 will be amended, so that local authorities and public bodies have to co-operate with each other in relation to the planning of sustainable development. This includes the preparation of development plan documents;

7. Pre-application consultation. Developers will be required to consult the local community before submitting a planning application for a large development – the Government has suggested that this could be, for example, a residential development of more than 200 units. Developers will have to take into account any opinions raised during this consultation before submitting their planning applications; and

8. Enforcement. Local authority planning enforcement powers will be improved. The Bill will tackle abuses such as making misleading planning applications, and running retrospective planning applications and enforcement appeals simultaneously. Other enforcement measures include increased financial penalties for planning-related offences, and the extension of time limits for taking action against people who conceal unauthorised development. 

The Bill raises a huge number of issues (and questions) and will have significant implications for local authorities and developers.

Although the Government says that the Bill is not a “Nimbys’ charter”, developers will need to get local people to embrace development in their areas.

In light of the proposed new local referendums and pre-application consultations, developers will need to be able to influence local residents, persuading them of the merits of their schemes and proposals. Developers may also find themselves having to collaborate with third parties on the design of a development.

It will be interesting to see how the definition of “neighbourhood” in the Bill develops, as it could constitute a small or large number of people, meaning that a vote on a potential development may be decided by only a few local people.

The Second reading of the Bill is scheduled to take place in the House of Commons on 13 January 2011. We will update you with any significant developments during the Bill’s parliamentary progress.

Under the proposals, all existing central policy statements, circulars and guidance documents would be consolidated into a single document – the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Government is concerned that the planning system is very “centralist”, with too many (often contradictory) policy documents, resulting in confusion for local councils, developers and local residents. In light of the Coalition Government’s overarching ‘localist’ agenda, the new Framework is intended to be more user-friendly and will hand power back to local communities.

The new Framework will:

1. Allow local communities (rather than central government) to decide what is right for their area;

2. Make it easier for members of the public to have a meaningful say in planning decisions; and

3. Establish a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

If you would like to send your suggestions on what shape the new Framework should take, you can do so by emailing planningframework@communities.gsi.gov.uk, or writing to Alan Scott, National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government, Zone 1/H6, Eland House, London, SW1E 5DU

All comments must be received by 28 February 2011.

The principal objective of the Code is to ensure that the building industry in England and Wales constructs new homes that use energy, water and materials more efficiently. The Code measures the sustainability of a new home against nine categories of sustainable design – energy/CO2, water, materials, surface water run-off (flooding and flood prevention), waste, pollution, health and well-being, management, and ecology.

The revised guide, which replaces the one issued in May 2009, implements the Government’s consultation proposals to:

1. Align the Code with the latest zero-carbon homes policy developments, including the changes to Part L of the Building Regulations;

2. Streamline the Code standards and processes; and

3. Adopt a new minimum fabric energy efficiency standard, which will be incorporated into all new homes from 2016.

Full details of what has changed can be found in the Government’s summary of changes.

In a further development, the Coalition Government, which is committed to reducing regulation and red tape in general, has hinted that the Code may eventually be merged into the Building Regulations, or even scrapped. We shall wait and see…

Following speculation and numerous delays, the Government has finally announced that the Decentralisation and Localism Bill will be published on Monday 13 December.

The highly anticipated and much-talked about Bill is expected to radically overhaul the planning system and is already at the centre of a legal dispute between the Department of Communities and Local Government and Cala Homes (South) Ltd.   

The new ‘localism’ – that is the shifting of power from central government to local people – will undoubtedly present a host of challenges to the property industry. And whether you love it or loathe it, it is here to stay. Afterall, Communities Minister Eric Pickles commented not long after his appointment that “…my three most important priorities… are: localism, localism and localism” and that ”I will make sure that localism is… wrapped up in the very DNA of the department.” 

The property industry will soon find out whether localism, and specifically the Decentralisation and Localism Bill, will help or hinder development.

In November, I wrote that, following a judicial review launched by Cala Homes (South) Ltd, the High Court had ruled that the revocation of the Regional Strategies was unlawful and that the High Court had put a temporary block on the Government’s guidance – published in a letter to all local planning authorities (LPAs) – that its plans to abolish the Regional Strategies must be regarded as a material consideration when making planning decisions. The temporary block will stay in place until the full legal hearing into the lawfulness of the revocation is heard in early 2011.

In the wake of the High Court ruling, the Planning Inspectorate has issued a statement, informing LPAs and planning inspectors that:

1. The Government is defending the judicial review challenge issued by Cala Homes (South) Ltd; and

2. Until the outcome of the aforementioned judicial review, LPAs and the Planning Inspectorate will need to consider whether the existence of the legal challenge and the basis of it (i.e that the Government’s intended revocation of the Regional Strategies in the forthcoming Decentralisation and Localism Bill is immaterial to the determination of planning applications and appeals before the revocation of Regional Strategies) affects the significance and weight that they should attach to the Government’s statements and guidance.

UPDATE:  The Localism Bill will be published on Monday 13th December. The news was announced on Twitter last night by the Communities secretary Eric Pickles. Mr Pickles tweeted “Localism Bill will be introduced next Monday. Lots of power to Councils.” We will analyse the content (and potential implications) of the Bill in due course.

UPDATE (Feb 2011): Cala Homes (South) Ltd has lost its High Court challenge against the Government’s claim that its intention to abolish the Regional Strategies should be considered by local planning authorities when ruling on planning applications. Click here for full details.

This announcement follows a recent successful legal challenge by Cala Homes (South) Ltd, which resulted in the High Court ruling that the Communities and Local Government Secretary, Eric Pickles, had acted unlawfully when he announced the revocation of the Regional Strategies in England back in May (further details are here.)

Despite the High Court ruling, Mr Pickles and the Government’s chief planning officer wrote to all local planning authorities (LPAs), informing them of the Government’s intention to still abolish the Regional Strategies in the forthcoming Decentralisation and Localism Bill, and that LPAs should regard this as a material consideration when making planning decisions. Cala responded by making a further application to the High Court, challenging the lawfulness of this Government statement and asking for the letter to be withdrawn.

The application has now been expedited, pending a full legal hearing into the lawfulness of the Government’s statement, which will probably be sometime in early 2011. As a result, until the outcome of that hearing, no regard should be given to the Government’s intention to abolish the Regional Strategies.  

The situation remains unclear: the Regional Strategies may have been reinstated, but they are still due to be scrapped (the Decentralisation and Localism Bill is expected to be issued in December.) Also, the current situation increases the possibility that there will be a number of legal challenges to planning decisions that were made on the basis of Mr Pickle’s advice that LPAs should act as though the Regional Strategies had already been scrapped (even though they hadn’t been.)

One thing is clear: confusion reigns.

UPDATE (Feb 2011): Cala Homes (South) Ltd has lost its High Court challenge against the Government’s claim that its intention to abolish the Regional Strategies should be considered by local planning authorities when ruling on planning applications. Click here for full details.

Robert Davis, the Deputy Leader of Westminster City Council, has written a letter to the Decentralisation Minister, Greg Clark, calling on the Government to allow local authorities to charge for listed buildings applications. Seven other local authorities from across the UK are signatories to the letter.

The eight local authorities (which have the largest number of listed buildings in the UK) are concerned that the Government’s proposals will exclude the charging of fees for listed building and conservation area consents – areas which they argue require a lot of expertise and take the most time to handle due to their complexity. Faced with having to make significant savings over the next few years, the local authorities have warned that unless they are able to recover their costs from handling such complex planning applications, they may have to make cuts to the historic building maintenance services.

Westminster City Council has claimed that their campaign has won the backing of many leading figures in the property industry, and that developers have said they are willing to pay more money to ensure their developments are not jeopardised by cuts to the planning service and skills shortages.

In the consultation paper, the Government proposes to:

1. Decentralise the setting of planning application fees, so that the responsibility is passed to local planning authorities (LPAs); and

2. Widen the scope of planning application fees, so that LPAs can charge for more of their services.

Under these proposals, LPAs would be able to:

1. Set their own fees;

2. Charge higher fees for retrospective applications; and

3. Charge for resubmitted applications following withdrawal or refusal.

But they will not be able to make a profit on fees (though they will be able to recover the actual cost of submitting a planning application.)

The decision to consult on this issue stems from concerns that local authorities are unable to recover the true costs of planning applications because of the fixed fee charging system, which is set by the Government. This has meant that, in a number of cases, taxpayers’ council tax bills have risen, as local authorities try to make up any shortfall.

The consultation closes on 7 January 2011.

If the proposals are taken forward following the consultation, local authorities will be able to set their own fees from April 2011, with a six-month transition period until October 2011. During the transition period, local authorities will be able to use the current fees set by central Government, though these will be withdrawn in October 2011.