PIB in the Spotlight: MHCLG publishes impact assessment for the Planning & Infrastructure Bill
Yesterday, MHCLG published the long-awaited impact assessment for the Planning & Infrastructure Bill.
It is a beast of a report with eleven appendices, each focused on a different element of the bill. So, it shouldn't be a surprise to learn that there is a LOT of detail that can be pulled from it.
This blog is not a complete review of the entire impact assessment. I am going to look at just three of the appendices: Planning Fees (annex 11), Planning Committees (annex 12), and the return of Strategic Planning (annex 14).
I have deliberately left out Environmental Delivery Plans and the Nature Recovery Fund. Those proposals deserve a post all of their own, * but it is certainly interesting to note that there seems to be a distinct difference in the approach and conclusions of the Impact Assessment and those reached by the Office of Environmental Protection when it reported on the bill last week.
Before we get into the appendices, there is a wider point about the bill, and indeed the impact assessment, that is worth exploring - albeit briefly. The pivotal role it plays in the Government's plans for economic growth.
You may remember, a few months back, that the OBR upgraded the country's growth prospects somewhat as a result of the Government's changes to the NPPF. Well, this seems to have been taken as a sign that planning reform will be key to the country's future economic growth.
I can say this fairly confidently, as the MHCLG press release, which accompanied the publication of the impact assessment, talks about very little else.
This is important to keep in mind for two reasons:
- The economic impacts of the bill have clearly been an area of focus for those preparing the impact assessment; and
- The importance of the bill for the Government's wider economic agenda means that they are likely to put a lot of time, effort, and political capital into ensuring that it gets onto the statute book as quickly as possible.
Now that we have set the scene. What does it actually say…. what does MHCLG think the brave new world that PIB is intended to usher in will actually look like….
Planning Fees
Unsurprisingly, the Government expects the overall impact of allowing local authorities to set local variations to planning fees - on a cost recovery basis - to be positive.
What is more interesting, however, is the how they define the success of the proposal. This is described as follows:
"An indicator of success would be a reduction in the overall funding shortfall of LPAs by the end of the financial year 2026-27. The impact of this will be seen in the increased revenue for local planning authorities generated by planning fees and spent on the delivery of planning application services. This is submitted in annual returns to Government and collated in a table (RO5).4
17. Other indicators of success will be an improvement in the speed of decision-making (measured by the proportion of applications determined within the statutory time periods or agreed extended timescales) and quality of decision-making measured by the proportion of decisions that are allowed at planning appeal. Figures that will enable this impact to be assessed are produced by the Department through the publication of quarterly planning statistics. A key caveat is that LPA performance will be affected by other factors, such as the number of applications submitted, which is expected to increase significantly in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) reforms."
In short, the increase will be treated as a success if more money actually makes it into LPA planning departments, and performance improves as a result.
The Government's views of the risks of the proposal, and how to mitigate them, also make for an interesting read. This section of the report reads as follows:
“Fee Increases Without Service Improvement: Authorities may increase fees and increase resources, but the service quality remains unchanged. This will be mitigated by regularly performance monitoring, through the existing planning performance regime, for speed and quality of decision-making will continue. Where an LPA is falling below required performance thresholds, then support through PAS (for example through a service review) can be provided. The Government can also intervene and designate Local Authorities that persistently underperform.
• Burden of Setting Fees: Authorities may find it too burdensome to set their own fees and as a result may continue to struggle to achieve cost recovery. HMG will provide guidance to LPAs on how to benchmark costs and set their own fees. This guidance would likely include best practice and examples of successful fee structures. Additional training and support would also be provided through PAS, to help LPAs to implement these measures effectively.
• Capacity and Capability Challenges: LPAs may still struggle to recruit the necessary staff, despite having additional funds. HMG is enhancing support for LPAs through initiatives like Pathways to Planning and the Public Practice associate programme. In addition, HMG has announced a £46 million programme to boost local planning authority capacity and capability. This funding will support the recruitment and training of over new 300 planners.”
None of this is necessarily new - but it is good to see that capacity and resourcing issues within LPAs are being taken seriously - and also that it is recognised that fee income alone is unlikely to be a panacea to the ongoing issues facing LPA planning departments.
Modernising Planning Committees
Now, this section of the Impact Assessment is extremely interesting. It estimates that the introduction of a national scheme of delegation will:
A. Significantly reduce the number of applications determined by Planning Committee. The estimated reduction is set out in the following table.
B. Significantly reduce the amount of time it takes to determine an application. The estimated number of days saved have been calculated as follows:
C. Reduce the number of appeals relating to a refusal against officer recommendation.
D. Reduce the number of planning appeals in total.
All of which is anticipated to result in significant cost savings, for applicants and LPAs alike.
There is only one risk highlighted in this section of the Impact Assessment - although it is a fairly critical one… the risk of unintended consequences….
Which, as we all know, have a nasty habit of cropping up when dealing with planning reform.
Strategic Planning
The strategic planning section of the Impact Assessment is also an interesting read. Not least because it contains several paragraphs utterly eviscerating the role, history, and effectiveness of the Duty to Co-operate in local plan examinations in England.
It is also one of the few parts of the bill that is expecting to come at a significant cost to the public purse, with the anticipated costs of preparing SDS's being estimated at between £62.7million and £147.2 million.
The anticipated benefits of bringing back strategic planning have been well rehearsed, but are listed in the impact assessment as follows:
- Facilitating the identification of new locations for housing and other development which will then in turn lead to site allocations in individual local plans and therefore new business opportunities for housing developers and other businesses.
- Helping to coordinate the delivery of strategic infrastructure such as roads and utilities upgrades which can help unlock stalled sites and provide new development opportunities.
- Ensuring that new development is located in the most appropriate locations to support economic growth (e.g. locating new housing development in areas where there is a shortage of accommodation for workers and their families).
- Ensuring that new development is in sustainable locations to help mitigate environmental impacts such as flood risk which can harm local businesses.
- Identification of key infrastructure requirements and engagement of infrastructure providers
- Identification of strategic locations for development and an indication of the scale of development required
- Apportionment and distribution of housing need
- Collaboration and pooling of resource across constituent authorities to meet housing need (including collaboration with Homes England through Strategic Place Partnerships)
The risks section of this appendix is also interesting - particularly in the light of the recent local elections. One of the key risks highlighted in the report, in addition to a lack of funding or the risk of delayed take-up, is the risk that the SDS's which are drawn up by the new strategic authorities are not “pro-growth”.
The exact wording is set out below:
"62.There is a low risk that SDS are not pro-growth because it is the Government’s intention that they should be tested for soundness against the NPPF when examined by a planning inspector. The NPPF has recently been updated to better support the Government’s economic growth and house building objectives.
63.The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will have powers of intervention into any SDS which is either not being produced in a timely way or is inconsistent with national policy."
Clearly, there is a political risk to Labour's planning reform agenda - especially if the devolution agenda ends up handing significant planning powers to elected mayors who do not support the Government's overall vision - however this is a risk that (ironically) the last administration may already have mitigated.
We know that the Government intends to introduce National Development Management Policies, which were created by LURA. Once adopted, NDMPs will have the same legal status as local plans - unless there is a conflict. In which case, the NDMP would take precedence.
Which, when you think about it, is quite a powerful safeguard against the risk of LPAs and Mayoral Strategic Authorities not signing up to the Government's overall vision.
Consultations yet to come
There was one other risk mitigation factor that cropped up several times in the Impact Assessment and its appendices: public consultation.
The report expressly states, on several occasions, that detailed consultations will be carried out during the passage of the bill - to refine the detailed proposals to be enshrined in secondary legislation.
Detailed consultation has been promised on, amongst other things:
- The level at which national ‘default’ planning fees should be set
- The form and content of mandatory Planning Committee Member training; and
- The National Scheme of Delegation
With the consultations taking place whilst the bill is progressing through parliament.
As I mentioned earlier in this post, PIB is an important bill for the Government, and it is progressing quickly. The public bills committee is due to report at the end of the month. So, at least some of these consultations could make an appearance fairly soon.
I hope you all have your pens at the ready. After all, if we take the Impact Assessment at face value, our consultation responses are all that stand between the Government and the risk of unintended consequences….
*and I know that Claire has been mulling them over for a while.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a comprehensive package of reforms that will support delivery of the Government’s economic growth and clean power missions and delivery of the Plan for Change milestones to deliver 1.5 million safe and decent homes and fast-track 150
planning decisions on major infrastructure by the end of this Parliament. This impact assessment provides an overview of the anticipated quantitative and qualitative impacts of
relevant Bill measures. Many measures in this Bill require supporting secondary legislation to set out more fully how they will operate, which will require further assessment to fully analyse the potential impacts.”
Key Contact
