A FORWARD LOOKING PLANNING MANIFESTO. In association with

Transcription

1 A FORWARD LOOKING PLANNING MANIFESTO In association with

2

3 Introduction Marnix Elsenaar Partner and Head of Planning, Addleshaw Goddard Major changes have been made to the planning system by successive governments of all parties. Yet, as the general election approaches, planning reforms remain a key component of topics dominating the political debate: housing, transport, infrastructure, energy and economic growth. Reforms have focused to a large extent on cutting red tape and making things simpler for developers. Thousands of pages of policy and guidance have been done away with, replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework. The introduction of neighbourhood planning, changes to appeal procedures and the introduction of a planning court have sought to make things fairer, but continued confusion about the community infrastructure levy and complaints about the system s inefficiencies continue. To better understand the reforms that would improve the planning system, we convened a roundtable of planning experts from local government, FTSE-listed housebuilders, developers and planning consultants to draw together a planning manifesto for the next election to inform political parties and the debate itself. The fundamentals of the planning system have remained the same since the first Town and Country Planning Act in This is not something to be ashamed of: it is a system that, perhaps uniquely, places democracy and consent at the heart of the system. There remains a consensus that the system must balance the interests of developers and communities. It engages the electorate and gives them a major say over what gets built and where. But, alongside this, it was recognised that some recent reforms have been far from helpful, and that fresh thinking is needed to prevent the planning system hindering both our economic and social future. All around us, projects of national significance are stalled amid debate, political wranglings and legal tussles as vested interests are fought over and key decisions delayed. Our discussion identified four themes to consider that should underpin further reform. 1. Simplification Making the existing system, guidance, regulation and advice simpler; to save time, reduce waste and avoid a culture where legally challenging everything is the norm. 2. Streamlining and professionalisation A commitment to no further cuts in planning budgets Planning requires a large degree of specialism, but this is not needed everywhere at once. 3. Innovation Having a forward thinking plan that allows real long term strategic planning to flourish unimpeded Using technology to aggregate ideas, responses, build support for proposals and leverage finance Using technology to empower and involve citizens through the democratisation of data Promoting skills and future resources through academia and workplace partnerships. 4. Promotion of democracy Having appropriate levels of cross-party support for big ticket items to remove delays while demonstrating a clear line of accountability Removing short sighted political whims from the planning process of future major projects of national/ regional significance Supporting the ability of local politicians to make decisions but with suitably robust frameworks to guide them. While the 2012 Olympics was delivered efficiently and on budget, it remains the exception, rather than the rule. Key decisions about airport expansion agreed over a decade ago - have been continuously delayed to avoid political fallout, HS2 was bogged down in litigation before the bill s second reading had even occurred and housebuilders remain frustrated by the delays in receiving consent for homes politicians blame them for not delivering.

4 RECOMMENDATION A sensible debate on the Green Belt Britain is not the overly urbanised country people imagine it to be. According to the government s UK National Ecosystem Assessment published in 2012, just 6.8% of land in the UK is classified as urban, while land actually built on accounts for just 2.27%. Introduced in 1947 when the England s population was just 38 million people (the population is now over 53 million), the green belt hasn t shifted. Any proposal to build on it is immediately shot down in an emotive swell of environmental hysteria, yet the reality is that majority of people have a misconception of what the green belt actually is. People mistake it for green field land - meadows, areas of outstanding natural beauty or of great agricultural value - but this is very often not the case. It is a politically defined band around cities, often of little environmental value. There are huge variations within the green belt, so why not build on land with no biodiversity value? We need to move away from a one-size-fits all approach. The recently published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) offered hope of a more flexible approach, but the government shut down the debate in the face of relentless lobbying by countryside groups. In the context of housing, there has to be a recognition that the current generation cannot simply pull up the drawbridge when it comes to the building of new homes. After all, all homes are built on what were once green fields. Parties should commit to undertaking a detailed study of the capacity for development within the green belt, performed by an independent body that has cross-party political backing. The purpose of the study would be to determine: What the modern purpose of the green belt is How much could be built on, and where, without any adverse effect on the purpose of the green belt To distinguish different types of green belt land, their purpose and suitability for development. The Town and County Planning Association published a policy statement in 2002, acknowledging the importance of the Green Belt, but also its stifling of municipal growth, calling for the government to initiate a review of green belt policy to assess how far it is relevant to present and future needs and how it can contribute to the achievement of sustainable development objectives. Twelve years later, the debate has still not happened, and the misapplication of green belt policy continues to stall progress.

5 GREEN BELTS Source: DCLG/Telegraph

6 National Economic Plan European countries have one. Canada has one. But has Mark Carney asked David Cameron where ours is? A national economic plan, that is. Housing, transport, energy and social infrastructure are cornerstones of any civilised society. They are crucial to supporting economic growth. However, for the most part they are subject to the political whims of the governing parties. Unlike other countries, the UK has no plan in place which outlines or supports future development plans affecting the nation. In August, the main Northern cities - Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield - launched the One North report which set out a raft of measures focused around transport to bring the urban centres closer together. It followed the Mayor of London s own London Infrastructure Plan 2050, released in July calling for a doubling in the capital s own infrastructure spending to tackle the backlog of historic under-investment and keep up in the global race. Both will be crucial to supporting future growth. Yet neither of these pieces of work was coordinated or considered how such wide-ranging investment could be aligned at a national level. Without a coherent plan for the entire country s future development, how can we, for example, work out our future energy and transport demands? How can we avoid every major decision running into years of delays? A National Economic Plan should be drawn up by a cross party group chaired by the prime minister, with the plan approved by Parliament. The critical requirement is securing agreement over what is strategically needed. It needs to look over the long-term encouraging regional cooperation, not competition across the entire country. This would create myriad benefits by avoiding costly judicial reviews and political clashes, by securing cheaper, long-term financing and by reducing risk for investors, lenders and private sector developers. After all, it s these groups who ultimately deliver what Britain needs. This would send an important message to investors at home and abroad that we have a plan and are open for business. Reducing the risk of major planning delays or the threat that major investment decisions could be subject to the whims of politicians is something no government has yet accomplished.

7

8 Five borough London Too many boroughs replicating functions is inefficient. New York works with five boroughs, while London, which is of a similar size, has 32 (33 including the City of London Corporation). At a time when planning departments have seen the biggest cuts of all local government functions, there is huge inconsistency across councils in terms of performance and resource. Large regeneration projects that cover more than one borough require developers to navigate a complex web of decision-making procedures, while dealing with varying levels of resource and expertise. This is stifling the current and future growth of the city, in terms of infrastructure, large-scale regeneration, and the much-needed building of new homes. A re-drawing of the London council map to aggregate skills, reduce costs and promote efficiency. A five-borough London would pool resources, improve economies of scale and reduce bureaucracy when delivering schemes and services that affect multiple districts. We are already seeing local authorities in London sharing legal and other services, with the tri-borough arrangement between Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster proving the concept. Local authorities functions and responsibilities include far more than planning, and we are not proposing to usurp these, but planning, and the services it supports - housing, regeneration, roads and public transport - will all benefit from a streamlined and more efficient structure. If New York - home to over eight million people - can exist with five boroughs then there is no reason London cannot improve its own efficiency and do the same.

9 Local government reform: metro-regional bodies Outside of London, the two tiers of county and district councils create inefficiencies and uncertainties for development. In metropolitan areas, the creation of city regions is an acknowledgement that the present local authority boundaries are not fit for purpose. The axing of regional strategies by the coalition government ostensibly putting planning and development back into the hands of local bodies, and addressing the democratic deficit has restricted the ability to plan large scale infrastructure that allows regional growth. Reforms are needed to drive efficiency and improve performance, particularly when coordinating the planning of regional centres and their hinterland, where development and growth - despite the boundaries of local authorities - are inextricably linked. Re-align the UK council planning map to coordinate development for metropolitan regions and their surroundings, creating metroregional planning bodies that can plan strategic infrastructure not just for cities, but the commuter watershed around them. This will bypass the localization of planning decisions, and help solve the issue of under-resourced local planning functions. The 100 million Transformation Fund is being launched to encourage further sharing of back and front office functions between councils, including health, human resources, emergency services, finance initiatives and data management. The drive towards shared services has re-awakened calls for the creation of further unitary authorities, and a natural next step is to consider whether that can be extended to other services including planning. The Local Government Act of 1972, (implemented in 1974), saw a complete restructuring of local government bodies. No such radical reform is needed, but regional and municipal growth needs an overarching and strategic planning tier.

10 Housing targets at the regional tier Housebuilding is a national issue. With the shortfall in homes in England estimated at three million, the strategy to alleviate this needs to be defined at the national or regional level. Putting the decisions for large housing projects into the hands of local bodies has exposed the limitations in local authority decision-making, who possess neither the resources, political will nor long-term perspectives needed to push through much needed large-scale housing development. The duty to cooperate, which was meant to fill the void of regional strategies, has failed to deliver due to a focus on local, rather than regional, need. It has also elongated the development process for housebuilders, and called into question the financial viability of schemes in many areas. Create a greater commitment to larger than local planning functions specifically for housebuilding. This can only be done through housing targets set at the regional tier, because to solve the housing crisis there needs to be a degree of wider strategic planning that can transcend local NIMBY-ism and political point scoring. Regional or national planning bodies are needed that are able to identify, earmark and incentivise defined zones for housing development. They need to have the expertise to define where there is an acute undersupply of housing, the skillset to create a coherent plan to address this, and the political clout to push it through. Creating planned zones would have the advantage of depoliticising the decision making process at the local level by removing the onus of unpopular political decisions from local councilors. At the same time it would allow local regions and authorities to build the housing they need to grow, while attracting more house builders to priority areas through a simpler planning process.

11 Derelict land giveaways Huge swathes of brownfield land lie dormant across the country, providing little impetus for the investment needed to bring them into productive use. While the Olympics acted as a catalyst for the regeneration of Stratford, this only happened thanks to the creation of a special planning authority that took control of delivering the project across the borders of local councils. Remediating land is expensive, and with the added risk of applying for planning, many potential projects are financially unworkable, even though such land will typically be set near potential infrastructure, such as roads or railways. Earmarked sites that have lain dormant for a set number of years - such as the Royal Docks in London that have not been used since should be given away with planning permission to developers who present a credible plan for their regeneration in line with planning policy. Setting a time limit within which development must take place will ensure there is no opportunity cost in giving the land away, while allowing benefit to be maximised with the advantage of additional housing, jobs and taxes outweighing the potential proceeds from a sale of an asset that has lain dormant and produced no income for decades. Councils need to look at the longer term view, considering the lifetime tax generated by housing rather than simply the land cost which can act as a barrier to any kind of activity taking place.

12 Earmarking public land for housebuilding Around the UK large amounts of land sit idle on the balance sheets of public bodies despite the ongoing national crisis of too few homes being built and local authority budgets being slashed. Though efforts have been made to encourage public land to be brought forward, levels of success vary considerably among local authorities and government bodies, with many still not making productive use of their land holdings and others asking unrealistic sums for development. This is either stalling, or inadvertently encouraging, the wrong kind of housing development, of expensive, prime stock, which does little for those in the middle income bracket. Local authorities should lower the price of public land for the right kind of housing development, such as private rented or midmarket housing, that will bring real long-term community benefit. This will not only help fill local coffers, but increase the supply of much needed new homes. So far, distribution between government departments and councils has been uneven, but giving each authority and body a target, and imposing sanctions on those that do not meet these, will help unlock the process. A concerted effort to utilise more public land for housebuilding needs to be made. Reforming the Community Infrastructure Levy Land that has planning permission for development is more valuable than land that does not and, for decades, governments have attempted to introduce ways to tax this fairly. The community infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into force in 2010 with the long-term aim of superseding the existing section 106 requirements that will only be used for site-specific mitigation. While some are calling for a removal of CIL on the grounds of perceived unfairness and complexity, any replacement is likely to be just as complex and may be just as guilty of slowing and stalling development, rather than encouraging it. Making changes to the current system is likely to provide a better result and as the recently issued CIL Amendment Regulations have shown - both policy makers and the industry are keen to support this. Major criticisms of CIL in the past have centered on its inability to deliver infrastructure in lieu of funds, and its complex interaction with large, phased schemes. The 2014 amendments have attempted to address these issues allowing for a charging authority to accept infrastructure payments in satisfaction of the whole or part of a CIL charge, and permitting phased payments for large schemes. Despite this, the inherent complexity of CIL calculations that under-resourced authorities are unable to process quickly, and which muddy the waters of a scheme s financial viability for developers - continue to stall development. Simplification, or shared services for the processing of calculations, are needed to assist in CIL s implementation, and to ensure authorities do not forgo much needed infrastructure payments when charging schedules come into force.

13 Roof tax

14 Crowdfunding support - promoting localism and public engagement The democratic deficit, where key public bodies don t quite deliver on their promises of democracy, remains a key obstruction of national or regional planning policies. But alongside this, in spite of moves by all political parties to inspire greater levels of community engagement through localism, the fact remains that planning meetings remain the domain of the vocal minority. While most people have an opinion, very few exercise their democratic right to use it to influence planning decisions in their locality. The removal of public services perceived as less critical as a result of spending cuts have however inspired a new type of localism in planning decisions that could go some way to addressing the democratic deficit, and address the reversal in the provision of public amenities which has been a concern of local authorities across the UK. While it remains impractical to put the control of large-scale infrastructure and development solely in the hands of local bodies, at the other end of the scale the cuts in local authority budgets have provided the opportunity for localism and digital technology - to play a far greater role in the provision of local services. Civic crowdfunding, where people group together online to share the cost of a civic project, has come forward as a viable solution, with anyone being able to list an idea and encourage others to pledge cash to support it. Crowdfunding has the potential to de-politicise the planning process: a project popular enough to get funding through online pledges can be supported without fear of a voter backlash, and allows locals to vote with their wallets for the schemes that they think would add value to their local area. Numerous UK councils have already supported projects, and Section 106-money is often dipped into. Recent amendments to neighbourhood planning will allow councils to distribute 25% of CIL revenues to neighbourhood groups, with the potential for this money to be used to match funds raised through crowdfunding. The future applications for such a groundbreaking form of civic funding are only now being realised. Spacehive: Liverpool - Sky Park,

15 Spacehive projects: Bristol - Water slide, a temporary water slide along Park Street Edinburgh - Porty Light Box, an art gallery in a phone box Newham - The Line, an open air sculptural walk and art exhibition Contacts Marnix Elsenaar, Partner - Real Estate and Head of Planning marnix.elsenaar@addleshawgoddard.com Jane Hollinshead, Partner - Real Estate and Joint Head of Real Estate Sector jane.hollinshead@addleshawgoddard.com Grant Anderson, Partner - Real Estate grant.anderson@addleshawgoddard.com Gary Sector, Legal Director - Real Estate gary.sector@addleshawgoddard.com

16 2015 Addleshaw Goddard LLP. All rights reserved. Extracts may be copied with prior permission and provided their source is acknowledged. This document is for general information only. It is not legal advice and should not be acted or relied on as being so, accordingly Addleshaw Goddard disclaims any responsibility. It does not create a solicitorclient relationship between Addleshaw Goddard and any other person. Legal advice should be taken before applying any information in this document to any facts and circumstances. Addleshaw Goddard is an international legal practice carried on by Addleshaw Goddard LLP (a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales and authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority) and its affiliated undertakings. Addleshaw Goddard operates in the Dubai International Financial Centre through Addleshaw Goddard (Middle East) LLP (registered with and regulated by the DFSA), in the Qatar Financial Centre through Addleshaw Goddard (GCC) LLP (licensed by the QFCA), in Oman through Addleshaw Goddard (Middle East) LLP in association with Nasser Al Habsi & Saif Al Mamari Law Firm (licensed by the Oman Ministry of Justice) and in Hong Kong through Addleshaw Goddard (Hong Kong) LLP (a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales and registered and regulated as a foreign law firm by the Law Society of Hong Kong) in association with Francis & Co. In Tokyo, legal services are offered through Addleshaw Goddard s formal alliance with Hashidate Law Office. A list of members/principals for each firm will be provided upon request. The term Partner refers to a member of Addleshaw Goddard LLP or an employee or consultant of the LLP or any of its affiliated firms or entities with equivalent standing and qualifications. If you prefer not to receive promotional material from us, please us at unsubscribe@aglaw.com For further information please consult our website or Offices in Doha, Dubai, Hong Kong, Leeds, London, Manchester, Muscat, Singapore and Tokyo* * a formal alliance with Hashidate Law Offi ce