Delivering development: local plans and National Infrastructure

Mark Southgate, Director of Major Applications and Plans

Delivering development: local plans and National

Infrastructure

Oxford Brookes Annual Planning Lecture, 28 May 2014

Contents• PINS background

• Economic and Policy context

• Local Development Plans

• Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning Regime

• 2014 Review


Planning InspectorateMission

“To deliver an outstanding national planning and appeals service which enjoys the confidence and respect of Ministers, the public and all stakeholders”

Values

Fairness, Openness and Impartiality


Casework types• National Infrastructure applications

• Development plans

• Major applications – underperforming LPAs

• Planning appeals

• Enforcement appeals

• Major casework: Secretary of State

• Specialist casework – environment, transport, costs

Planning appeals caseload 1999/00 – 2012/13

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

99/0

0

00/0

1

01/0

2

02/0

3

03/0

4

04/0

5

05/0

6

06/0

7

07/0

8

08/0

9

09/1

0

10/1

1

11/1

2

12/1

3

* inc Householder Appeals Service cases


Planning: all change please!

• Planning Act 2008

• Localism Act 2011

• National Planning Policy Framework 2012

• Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013

• National Planning Policy Guidance 2014

• Changes to permitted development rights


Planning: the Business View

‘Business has come to the view that the UK’s planning system is a blocker’ (CBI)

‘The planning system is too complex, too costly and lacks consistency’ (BCC)


Oxford Brookes Annual Planning Lecture, 28 May 2014 9

Number of homes approved

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2007 Q2 Q4 2008 Q2 Q4 2009 Q2 Q4 2010 Q2 Q4 2011 Q2 Q4 2012 Q2 Q4 2013 Q2 0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

240,000

280,000

Quarterly (Left) Rolling Annual (Right)

Source: HBF Housing Pipeline Report


NPPF•Plan led system

•Duty to cooperate

•Up to date plans

•Positively prepared; boost significantly supply of housing

•Meet objectively assessed needs, in full

•5 year housing land supply

Oxford Brookes Annual Planning Lecture, 28 May 2014 11


Plan progress – submitted for examination


Duty to co-operate• Legal requirements (PCPA 2004, section 33A) has to be met

during plan preparation

• Potential show stopper since plan cannot be repaired after submission

• Not a duty to agree, but co-operation in maximising effectiveness a much higher bar than consultation, information-sharing, meetings with other LPAs

• Planning Policy Guidance gives helpful steer

• Lessons from failures - eg North London Waste, Coventry, Hart, Kirklees, Aylesbury, Mid Sussex

• High Court judgment on challenge to adoption of Winchester CS also helpful – duty satisfied


NPPF key principles

“it is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place” paragraph 12

“proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, businesses and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs” paragraph 17

“Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system” paragraph 19


Objectively assessed needs “every effort should be made to objectively identify then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth” NPPF, paragraph 17

•Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) to assess full housing needs; meet household and population projections (taking account of migration)

•Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) realistic assumptions about availability, suitability and likely viability of land to meet identified needs


5 year housing land supply “To boost significantly the supply of housing, LPAs should:

• Identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their local requirements … ”

• +5% buffer to ensure choice and competition; and

• +20% “where there has been a record of persistent under delivery”

paragraph 47


Presumption in favour of sustainable development

“All plans should be based upon and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development” paragraph 15

“relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites” paragraph 49

Deliverable = available now; in a suitable location; have a realistic prospect of delivery in 5 years; be viable


Solihull judgementGALLAGHER HOMES LIMITED & LIONCOURT HOMES LIMITED v

SOLIHULL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL 30/04/14

• core strategy, examined and adopted post NPPF, cannot rely on housing figures in regional strategy

• any plan coming forward post NPPF must have housing figures based on objectively assessed needs

• implication that any plan that derives its housing numbers from RS figures may be vulnerable to legal challenge

• LPAs should base their plans, inc. Site Allocations, on an up-to-date need figure, esp. given the removal of the hierarchy of plans


Tips for successful plan making• Preparation is the key to success

• Evidence-based plans

• Use support available – PINS, PAS, planning guidance

• Constructive, active, on-going engagement on strategic cross-boundary matters

• Secure Member buy-in

• Effective and challenging self assessment

• Submit when LPA is satisfied the plan is sound and legally compliant


The main objective!



The political view

“An all-out mission to kick-start infrastructure projects and revive the economy”

(October 2011)


A long and noble tradition





The Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning Regime

Energy

Transport

Water Waste water Waste


2008 Act initial principles• One stop shop

• Front loaded

• Policy addresses need and principles

• Development as applied for/Development Consent Order

• Predominantly Written Representations

• Clear and statutory timetable

• Independent decision maker


National Policy Statements

• Overall energy policy

• Renewables

• Fossil fuels

• Electricity networks

• Oil and gas

• Nuclear

• Ports

• National networks

•Waste water

•Hazardous waste


Process – six steps

The Inspectorate has 28 days to decide whether the application meets the required standards to proceed to examination including whether the developer’s consultation has been

adequate.

The application processthe six steps

Pre-Application Acceptance Pre-Examination Examination Decision Post Decision

There is an opportunity for legal challenge

Interested parties make their detailed comments. They can request to speak at public hearings. The Inspectorate

has 6 months to carry out the examination

A recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State

will be issued by the Inspectorate within 3

months of the close of the examination. The Secretary of State then has a further 3 months to issue a decision

on the proposal.

Registration takes place at this stage, people who

register will be informed of progress and will be given further opportunities to put their case. Inspectors will

hold a preliminary meeting and set the timetable for

examination.

The promoter makes information available in the local media and in public places near the location of the proposed project. The developer at this point will be consulting on their proposal and will

still be shaping their project. Consultation will influence the final

submission. Where feedback cannot be taking on board the developer must

explain why this is the case.


The Planning Act 2008

DEVELOPER PINS SofS

Pre-application Acceptance

Pre-examination

Examination

Recommendation

Decision

1 Year plus Ca 1 Year

3 months

As amended by Localism Act 2011


Regime evolution• Localism Act 2011 – abolished

IPC; removed ‘merits bar’

• Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 – business or commercial

• Light touch review of DCLG guidance

• Consents Service Unit – April 2013

• 2014 NSIP regime review


Time taken per stage


• Heysham – Hearing 22-23 July 2013; Judgement 4 October 2013 - dismissed

• Rookery South – Hearing 5-6 February; Judgement orally made – dismissed

• Hinkley Point C – Hearing 5-6 December 2013; Judgement 20 December 2013 - dismissed; An Taisce appealed decision – granted 27 March

• Preesall – Hearing 10-11 December 2013; Judgement 17 January 2014 - decision quashed March 2014

Judicial Reviews


Actual and projected casework

Actual & Projected Stage Breakdown

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Month

Nu

mb

er

of

Pro

jects

SoS

Recommendation

Examination

Pre- Exam

Acceptance

Now


2013/14 Submissions vs developer forecasts: cumulative

Business Plan Projected Submissions vs Actual/ Current - 2013/ 14: Cumulative

3

6

9

13

15

18

20

23

26

29

31

33

1

3

5

8

10 1011 11

12

16 16

19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Apr-13 May-13 J un-13 J ul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 J an-14 Feb-14 Mar-14

Month

Nu

mb

er

of

Su

bm

itte

d P

roje

cts Estimated no. of

projects submitted inBusiness Plan

Actual/currentestimated no. ofprojects submitted


Progress Overview

Pre-Application 40 11 1 52

Acceptance MYG 1

Pre-Examination Nav Pro DBAB Hir TLSB NNDR White 7

Examination Imm Knot DBCB A30 Morp Will Horn Waln 8

Recommendation SH Wd C BB Cloc TTT NK K2B 7

SoS Decision Ram DIR EA1 3

Post Decision NL Staff Rook HPC Brec KFE Gall TK Pree 18

Bly Hey Ips Don EN Redd Lutn Able KL


• Different and novel process – technical and legal

• Front loaded system - a lot of developer effort required

• Up-front cost

• Limited ability to change development once application accepted

• Not all have National Policy Statement – NPPF, local plan

• Discharge of requirements and post consent changes

System challenges


Avoiding the pitfalls

• Genuine public engagement

• Listen to, and act upon, results

• Legal and technical advice – different regime

• Succinct applications

• Ensure application docs are consistent - eg DCO with ES

• Narrow issues - evidence agreement and SoCG

• Project Management


Delivery - Ipswich Rail Chord


Faster decisions - Hinkley Point C

• 31 Oct 2011 - application submitted

• 19 Dec 2012 - recommendation

• 19 Mar 2013 – Development Consent granted

• Sizewell B - 6 years to consent; inquiry 3 years!


In progress - Thames Tideway Tunnel

• Submitted 28 February 2013

• Accepted 27 March

• 25.1km long; 7m diameter

• Max 66m underground

• 50,000 Pages

• Over 1000 Plans

• 18,000 land

interests


• Improved pre app offer

• Post consent changes

Local authority and community engagement

Further change

Documents

Delivering development: local plans and National Infrastructure