Month: August 2023

The Government’s Big Move On Nutrient Neutrality – Now We Have Seen The Government’s LURB Amendment

No-one should be playing party politics with the nutrient neutrality issue. It’s difficult. It needs to be fixed. This is a quick post just to try to head off some of the comments that I have seen on social media today because the urgent need for a solution is in danger of being subsumed by general scepticism of this Government, exacerbated by the way that water companies have been allowed to fail in relation to water supply and sewage discharges. I write this on the back of Nicola Gooch’s excellent blog post this morning, LURB Watch: Government confirms Nitrates’ amendments to be tabled in House of Lords shortly  but since then we now have the proposed amendments to the LURB.

First of all, the basics:

House building is not the reason why some rivers and coastal waters around the country, protected as special areas of conservation or special protection areas by way of EU-derived legislation, are at or beyond a tipping point for the ecological integrity of those areas. Instead this is largely due to the historic run off of nitrates and/or phosphate from farm land and the inadequacy of our water infrastructure.

But the consequences of outflows from new housing has been seen by Natural England as the straw that would break the camel’s back and therefore its advice to local planning authorities faced with planning applications in affected catchments has been, in summary, not to approve them (and not to approve reserved matters applications or discharge pre-commencement conditions) unless the particular scheme can be shown to be nutrient neutral, given that otherwise in its view the “appropriate assessment” test in the Conservation of Habitats Regulations 2017 cannot be met, ie that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of any protected area.

So housebuilding has in practice been halted in various areas of the country until solutions can be implemented that demonstrably deliver nutrient neutrality.

To underline, this is not mainly about the polluting effects of new homes – it is about pre-existing problems.

I’ve written about the issues on various occasions, eg most recently in my 26 November 2022 blog post Nutrient Neutrality: Possibly Good News & Possibly Bad News and in my 6 June 2023 blog post CG Fry: AA Post PP.

The Government plainly recognises that the problem needs to be addressed. The current position, where so many schemes are stalled, is ridiculous and out of proportion to the extent to which housebuilding is actually the issue.

Right, so what is the Government’s solution?

Following Michael Gove’s press statement today, 100,000 more homes to be built via reform of defective EU laws  (29 August 2023), the latest tranche of tabled amendments ( https://bills-api.parliament.uk/api/v1/Publications/52407/Documents/3872/Download ) to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill have now been published, which include a number of amendments to the Conservation of Habitats Regulations.

The key proposed amendment is to introduce a new regulation 85B into the 2017 Regulations (see pages 19 and 20 of the pdf). Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) would read as follows:

“(2) When making the decision, the competent authority must assume that nutrients in urban waste water from the proposed development, whether alone or in combination with other factors, will not adversely affect the relevant site.

(3) Accordingly, a potentially adverse effect on a relevant site caused by nutrients in urban waste water, whether alone or in combination with other factors, is not a ground for the competent authority to determine that—

(a) an appropriate assessment is required by regulation 77(6), or

(b) the proposed development will adversely affect the integrity of the relevant site or otherwise have negative implications for the site.”

Strengthened duties on water companies by way of their environmental permitting processes are also proposed in the amendments, but this is radical!

If enacted, it would certainly enable permissions, reserved matters approvals and pre-commencement conditions to be unjammed. On balance in my view it is to be supported. However, the Government does need to be ready with answers to questions like these:

  1. Given that the Government has committed to no regression from the environmental protections that we enjoyed pre-Brexit (NB Mr Gove, don’t give me that “defective EU laws” politicking – it’s our water system and environmental permitting system that is defective not the underlying law!), why does this not amount to regression? In its defence no doubt the Government would point to the commitments in the press statement not just to “significantly expanding investment in and evolving the Nutrient Mitigation Scheme run by Natural England, doubling investment to £280m to ensure it is sufficient to offset the very small amount of additional nutrient discharge attributable to up to 100,000 homes between now and 2030” but also the package of longer term measures that are set out in detail in the statement. But if these commitments are solid enough to be relied upon, why can’t they just be taken into account in determining that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant protected area? Why isn’t the Government confident that this would be Natural England’s advice? Wouldn’t that be a more legally coherent strategy than simply taking nutrients issues out of the appropriate assessment process? And if Natural England can’t sign that position off in relation to any particular protected area, doesn’t that rather have the whiff of regression?
  1. What about developers who have signed up to expensive nutrient neutrality schemes or are negotiating at present if the Government is effectively now removing the issue from their plate? Or will Natural England and local authorities still raise the nutrients issue by way of objection to proposals in planning terms, even if no longer able to wave the Conservation of Habitats Regulations big stick? Is it indeed right (or even envisaged) that developers should be let entirely off the hook?
  1. What about the water neutrality issue in Sussex, which has led to an equivalent logjam, or issues as to recreation impacts in other areas of the country? Similar principles surely apply.
  1. Will Parliament allow the Government to get away with shoehorning this set of provisions into the Bill at this late stage (see the comments in Nicola’s post) and what does it mean for the timing of Royal Assent? How confident can we be that the provisions will (a) survive to Royal Assent and (b) be brought into force?

These are just initial thoughts. Better informed commentary very welcome.

Simon Ricketts, 29 August 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Local Plans System Fails Soundness Test

A vision softly creeping, left its seeds while I was sleeping:

Why don’t we test the whole local plans system against the soundness requirement in paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework?

Of course it’s not an exact fit but what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (an expression which also occurs to me whenever we have criticism from Government directed at local authorities for not moving faster). Is the current local plans system, for instance:

  • positively prepared
  • justified
  • effective
  • consistent with national policy?

Plainly not.

Is it a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the country’s objectively assessed needs? First of all, the 300,000 homes target, whilst undoubtedly being too low, has not been objectively assessed (so as, if nothing else, to reassure the sceptical) and secondly there is an increasing disconnect between that aspiration and local plan making reality.

Is it an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence? Reasonable alternatives? Evidence? Not how national policy-making seems to work.

Deliverable? Of course not.

Consistent with (other) national policy? Given the vital policy objectives to be delivered by proper forward planning – housing, economic growth, climate change mitigation, levelling up – again it’s a no.

I also query whether the proposed changes in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and more detailed implementation proposals, currently being consulted upon, would get to the root of the problems.

This thought occurred when reading the Tandridge local plan inspector’s 10 August 2023  letter to the council’s chief executive, in which the inspector (Philip Lewis) concludes that his concerns as to the soundness of the plan are such that he invites the council to withdraw it, failing which he will write a report setting out his reasoning.

His letter follows a procedural meeting on 27 July 2023 which you can watch on line here . A detailed paper was provided for the inspector by the council ahead of that meeting as a final, unsuccessful, attempt to avoid this outcome. The council issued a statement on 22 August 2023 indicating that it will look to resolve its response to the inspector’s letter at a meeting of the council’s planning policy committee on 21 September 2023.

I was taken back to the opening day of that examination, 8 October 2019, on legal compliance. I’m not sure that I have ever been at a local plan examination session with quite so many lawyers in attendance (not a good thing).

Mr Lewis’ concerns include:

  • unresolved highway capacity issues following the subsequent refusal of HIF funding for transport infrastructure, including works to junction 6 of the M25 on which the deliverability of the south of Godstone new settlement option was predicated– together with the consequent need for further lengthy transport assessment and modelling work
  • the need for the sustainability appraisal to reconsider reasonable alternatives in the light of the change in circumstances
  • the need for the council’s 2017 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment to be updated.
  • The fact that we are already half way through the plan period of the submitted plan which is 2013 to 2033 (incidentally is there anything more absurd than these plans which literally are planning for the past?)
  • The fact that much of the evidence base for the plan is now out of date, given for instance changes in the Use Classes Order.

Of course, it took time for the scale of the problems facing the council to become clear, particularly on the question of the deliverability of the south of Godstone new settlement proposal once the Government had refused HIF funding for the necessary infrastructure improvements. I know that it is in the public interest that plans generally should not be found unsound and that time should be given to enable plan-making authorities to do what may be needed to arrive at a sound plan, but was it necessary for the process to take almost four years before we finally get to a conclusion that has seemed on the cards for a long time now, sending the authority right back to the beginning?

I don’t want to make this a piece about the Tandridge plan and its site-specific issues. Because, if you have been out of the country for a few years I can reassure you that the York examination is also still underway – the first hearing session having been on 10 December 2019 – and indeed the Welwyn Hatfield examination is still underway – the first hearing session having been on 21 September 2017!

There is a common factor with all three examinations: these are authorities with large areas of green belt within their boundaries and where their local housing needs cannot be met without releasing land from the green belt, leading to politically-charged debates as to

  • the extent to which any planned shortfall is acceptable;
  • whether sufficiently exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated so as to justify release;
  • the selection of appropriate sites (including the extent to which there is reliance on new settlements rather than more dispersed patterns of growth); and as to
  • whether the selected sites are in fact deliverable.

In areas where housing supply is so constrained, and without any definitive Government guidance as to how these matters are to be resolved, or required timescale for so doing, or consistent, credible, penalties for not having an up to date plan in place, is it any wonder that we are where we are?

To the extent that the Government’s planning reforms would:

  • weaken the role of the standard method as a starting point for determining how many homes need to be planned for;
  • remove any requirement for authorities to review green belt boundaries to meet housing needs;
  • replace the duty to cooperate with an undefined “alignment” test, and
  • propose removing the “justified” limb of the soundness test

how precisely would these changes assist in say Tandridge, York or Welwyn Hatfield?  Would the idea be to allow the authority the freedom to plan to undershoot its local needs by a huge margin and simply accept the consequences of the lack of supply of homes for those needing to live in those areas – for family connections or work or for the sake of achieving balanced communities rather than the lucky few behind a raised drawbridge, perish the thought – to allow the situation to reach boiling point? The process improvements set out in the LURB will help at the margins but will not ease (1) the difficult local politics of arriving at a sensible plan for submission or (2) the difficult task of the inspector at examination (it’s not the local development management policies, or the lack of digital planning, or even the extent of supporting evidence required, which has held up these plans!).

Not only have we had these marathon local plan examinations, akin to the infamous (at the time, maybe now forgotten) Leeds local plan inquiry, the length of which I recall as one of the catalysts for the 2004 Act system in the first place, but we are also seeing authorities trying to read between the lines as to the latitude they perceive that they may now have.

For instance, take Three Rivers Council which has now torn up its draft plan and published a statement announcing that is starting work on an alternative plan that will “protect 98% of [its] precious green belt”, proposing that “the new housing figure for the district over the next 18 years should be 4,852 as opposed to the Government’s high target of 11,466.”

Or take Lichfield District Council which today (25 August 2023) announced that it was proposing to withdraw its submitted plan from examination:

“Councillor Alex Farrell, Portfolio Holder for Housing and the Local Plan, says “It is clear to me that our proposed new Local Plan is not suitable, and I’d like to see a new approach to housing that suits our local communities. We want to explore the idea of a new settlement in the district, as opposed to the current approach that is suffocating local communities with a disproportionate amount of housebuilding without sufficient infrastructure.”

He continues “It’s clear that the proposed new Local Plan 2040, which was submitted for examination last year, was not appropriate given both the changes that we have seen (and continue to see take place) in government national policy in the four years since it was initiated, plus the level of dissatisfaction we heard from residents about it in its current form.  It became evident that the proposed Local Plan no longer resonates with the evolving needs of our district, and we needed to change.  

“We only have two options. One; progress with the currently submitted plan or two, regroup and build a strong, strategic vision for the district that people can support and adopt. We recommend that we take the second option to deliver a strategy that is appropriate for the district today, and in the future, and therefore our recommendation is to withdraw the current plan and work in consultation with our residents and stakeholders to develop a new approach.” 

When is the Government going to stabilise what, in local plan making terms, seems to me to be equivalent to a run on the markets? (Although in the world of planning that’s obviously a very slow walk rather than anything approaching a run).  I’ve previously described Michael Gove’s statements on planning reform as akin to Trussenomics in terms of the (presumably wholly unintended) effect that they have been having on plan making. How else to describe it? Doesn’t something need to be said…?

The sounds of silence.

Simon Ricketts, 25 August 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Second Staircases: Just One Specific Example Of How DLUHC’s Announcements Could Be Improved

I wrote about the impending changes to the Building Regulations in my 7 January 2023 blog post, Tall Buildings & Fire Safety. At that point the Government was proposing various amendments including a threshold whereby residential buildings above 30 metres in height should be designed and built with two staircases. A “very short” transition period was proposed:

“59. The transition period will allow time for schemes to be completed but should not allow the opportunity for developments to get off the ground ahead of the new requirements coming into effect.

60. We would encourage all developments to prepare for this change now.”

Why 30 metres?

“30 metres is an accepted threshold for increased safety measures such as increased fire resistance provisions and marks a recognised trigger representing an increase in the level of risks in buildings overall. We therefore propose to introduce a new trigger in Approved Document B making provisions such that new residential buildings more than 30 metres are provided with a second staircase.”

The Government when publishing the consultation paper will have been aware that that the National Fire Chiefs Council had sought an 18 metres threshold – already the threshold in Scotland.

Now I don’t know whether 30 metres is the appropriate height – I’m told it is roughly equivalent to 10 storeys and that 18 metres is roughly equivalent to six or seven storeys  – but that’s not the point of this blog post. Developers have amended their proposals to address what they understood to be the impending 30 metre requirement. Indeed they were specifically encouraged to by the consultation document! Of course there was no certainty pending the outcome of the consultation process but given the additional cost and consequent effect on viability of providing second staircases within buildings under 30 metres that was surely a reasonable stance to take.

Then, deep within Michael Gove’s 24 July 2023 long-term plan for housing press statement, is this statement:

“This long-term plan for housing therefore builds on our existing progress by:

  • Confirming the intention to mandate second staircases in new residential buildings above 18m, following confirmation from expert bodies that they support this threshold. This responds to the call from the sector for coherence and certainty. This is a considered and gradual evolution of safety standards, which, when taken with our other fire safety measures and reforms ensures the safety of people in all tall buildings – both new and existing. The government is clear that this new regulation cannot jeopardise the supply of homes by disrupting schemes that have been planned for years. DLUHC will work rapidly with industry and regulators over the summer to design transitional arrangements with the aim of securing the viability of projects which are already underway, avoiding delays where there are other more appropriate mitigations.”

And in his actual speech the statement that the Government is “providing much-desired clarity to builders that 18m will be the threshold that we will introduce for new buildings requiring second staircases. And of course there will be transitional arrangements in place to make sure that there is no disruption to housing supply.”

So a significant u-turn:  18 metres after all rather than 30 metres.

The big practical questions are:

  • What will the specific transitional provisions be so as not to “jeopardise the supply of homes by disrupting schemes that have been planned for years“?
  • Will we have any clarity before the amended Regulations are laid before Parliament?
  • When is the earliest that the amended Regulations will take effect?
  • Should this likely change directly affect decisions on planning applications in any event, given separate operation of the Building Regulations regime? To what extent should planners have to second-guess what may or may not be acceptable under the Building Regulations and the nature of any transitional arrangements? And is stronger guidance needed to encourage authorities to treat positively any subsequent applications to amend permissions if amendments are required to meet Building Regulations changes (and potentially to take into account any consequent impact on viability)?

Surely, if DLUHC were seeking to give “much-desired clarity to builders” and avoid “jeopardising the supply of homes“, the 24 July announcement would have been accompanied by a formal reasoned response to the consultation process and certainty that regardless of the detail of the transitional arrangements, the amended Regulations would definitely not catch, for instance, planning applications submitted before that announcement.

Instead, whenever any of us engaged with these issues bump into each other this summer, the topic of conversation – after holidays, the weather and the Government – will continue to be “have you heard anything as to the likely 18 m transitional arrangements?”

Simon Ricketts, 12 August 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Relativity by M.C. Escher, courtesy of Wikipedia

Does The Government Have An Environmental Strategy Or Is It More Of A Tactic?

First, a scary graph:

(Source: BBC news piece, Ocean heat record broken, with grim implications for the planet)

The extent of the climate crisis is becoming plainer by the month. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres was reported on 27 July 2023 as saying that the era of global warming had ended and that the era of “global boiling” had arrived. July 2023 was the world’s hottest month on record. I saw a retired housebuilder scoff on LinkedIn that he had never heard anything as ridiculous as “global boiling”. I found that quite triggering in the current context and so apologies that I am not writing this week about any interesting planning law cases.

Instead, not in any way as an expert, but instead as a confused citizen, I’m asking myself…

What is the government’s current strategy on climate change and the environment, in the light of, for instance, the Prime Minister’s comments in the Telegraph on 29 July 2023 about being on the side of motorists and announcing on 31 July 2023 hundreds of new North Sea oil and gas licences to boost British energy independence and grow the economy?

I’m reminded of the “Be a strategist” chapter in Alastair Campbell’s book But What Can I do? Strategy = OST:

“O = Objective (what you want to achieve)

S = Strategy (‘the big how’: your definition of the overall approach)

T = Tactics (the detailed plans required to execute the strategy)“

Surely, the objective is, and should remain, to do all that we can do as a leading developed nation to encourage the world to combat the climate crisis.

I thought the Government’s strategy was well-documented, set out in its Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener (updated 5 April 2022) (reviewed earlier this year by Chris Skidmore – see my 21 January 2023 blog post Mission Zero Needs Planning) and by way of its longstanding commitments set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 , policed by the Climate Change Committee which was established for that purpose, including the objective of achieving net zero by 2050. You can question whether the strategy is ambitious enough but there it is.

The tactics to be deployed to achieve the objective are all of those individual measures set out and flowing from the strategy, including those set out in the Government’s 2023 carbon delivery plan.

However, I’m sensing that the prime minister’s OST instead may currently look like this:

O = Secure re-election or at least not too heavy a defeat

S = Win votes via populist “culture war” issues; have any sort of positive economic narrative come election time

T = Noise about eg being on the side of the motorist; prioritising economic growth over the net zero programme.

Of course, any debate on these issues gets bogged down in complexity. Argue about the stats, the projections and promised protections (carbon capture and storage etc etc), anything but just Don’t Look Up!

Perhaps let’s turn to that body that was set up by the 2008 Act. The Climate Change Committee published its 2023 Progress Report to Parliament on 28 June 2023). Reviewing the Government’s March 2023 Carbon Budget Delivery Plan  and the Government’s wider policy development, the CCC’s key messages are:

  • “A lack of urgency. While the policy framework has continued to develop over the past year, this is not happening at the required pace for future targets.
  • Stay firm on existing commitments and move to delivery. The Government has made a number of strong commitments, these must be restated and moved as swiftly as possible towards delivery.
  • Retake a clear leadership role internationally. The UK will need to regain its international climate leadership.
  • Immediate priority actions and policies. Action is needed in a range of areas to deliver on the Government’s emissions pathway.
  • Develop demand-side and land use policies. The Government’s current strategy has considerable delivery risks due to its over-reliance on specific technological solutions, some of which have not yet been deployed at scale.
  • Empower and inform households and communities to make low-carbon choices. Despite some positive steps to provide households with advice on reducing energy use in the last year, a coherent public engagement strategy on climate action is long overdue.
  • Planning policy needs radical reform to support Net Zero. The planning system must have an overarching requirement that all planning decisions must be taken giving full regard to the imperative of Net Zero.
  • Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero. As well as pushing forward strongly with new low-carbon industries, Net Zero also makes it necessary to move away from high-carbon developments.
  • The need for a framework to manage airport capacity. There has been continued airport expansion in recent years, counter to our assessment that there should be no net airport expansion across the UK.”

Alongside the report the following supporting research was published:

This all pre-dated last week’s oil and gas licensing announcement. Is there any case in 2023 for further extraction of fossil fuels? The CCC’s outgoing chair Lord Deben however made his views clear in a 3 August 2023 article for New Statesman: North Sea licences tell big oil we’re not serious about net zero.

And what about this stuff about being on the side of the motorist? It’s surely all adding up to a growing, tactical, culture war around climate issues. By-elections can unexpectedly become policy inflexion points – as we saw with the Chesham and Amersham by-election result in June 2021 that effectively scuppered a previous attempt to reform the planning system. Both main parties took from the 20 July 2023 Uxbridge and South Ruislip result that the Conservative candidate’s achievement in narrowly holding onto the seat was down to the unpopularity of London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s programme to extend the Ultra Low Emission Zone to outer London. Hence Keir Starmer’s disappointing wobble the next day but also, in spades, the Tory response. Here was an issue to rally behind, supposedly in support of those not able to afford to replace their older vehicles with ones which would be ULEZ compliant (although that fox has probably been shot by Khan’s 4 August Mayor announces massive expansion of scrappage scheme to all Londoners) but more widely an opportunity to mine a “pro-car”/anti- regulation seam – hence also the prime minister’s announced review on low traffic neighbourhoods. The Local Government Association’s view is clear: Councils best placed to make decisions with communities (30 July 2023). But this is a culture war – if local government folk (and probably people like you and me too) object, so much the better, is likely to be some political strategists’ thinking. And of course, along with all the political brouhaha come the inevitable legal challenges – on 28 July 2023 Hillingdon, Bexley, Bromley, Harrow and Surrey Councils failed in their judicial review of the proposed ULEZ expansion.

Let me throw in here some commentary more rooted in planning law. I was interested to receive a comment on my recent blog post about the M&S Oxford Street decision letter. The comment was along the lines of whether there was anything to stop M&S in any event demolishing the building, unlisted, not in a conservation area, relying on the prior approval right to do that in the General Permitted Development Order. This really does illustrate the lack of joined up thinking in planning legislation. Should demolition be more closely regulated? Why, when there is current consultation on possible changes to the General Permitted Development Order, and if minimising the loss of embodied carbon is now a Government objective (no clear policy on that, we are left reading between the lines), is there still, for instance, the demolition and rebuild (with 1,000 sq m cap)  commercial to residential right, only introduced in 2020?!

Finally, to hear views and debate on the Government’s recent announcements on planning reform that were the subject of my blog post last week The Message, you can listen back to our two hour-long Clubhouse sessions on the issues – here for the discussion of Michael Gove’s 24 July statement as to his long-term plan for housing and here for detail on proposed reforms to plan-making, the GPDO and application fees. And although I’m not wedded to the idea unless there is real interest, if anyone would like to speak at a future Clubhouse session about the issues in this blog post then let me know.

And final final plug – there’s a very small but growing planning community on Threads, which is certainly improving as a more wholesome alternative to Twix (they have largely sorted out the issues which initially were so annoying for people). Feel free to join by downloading the app via Apple’s App Store or Google Play for Android – still only by mobile device, although that will change in the next few weeks. An interesting time lies ahead and I’m feeling that we are going to need to share our thinking…

Simon Ricketts, 5 August 2023

Personal views, et cetera

Image courtesy of Don’t Look Up (Netflix)