The amendments to the planning system introduced by LURA are being brought into force gradually. I summarised the first two sets of commencement regulations in my 4 February 2024 blog post Treasure Hunt: LURA Commencement Regulations & Transitional Provisions . The third set of commencement regulations were then made on 18 March 2024 and now we have this fourth set of commencement regulations. Irwin Mitchell’s Nicola Gooch is the LURA commencement order queen and summarises the latest changes here with an updated table as to when the various planning-related provisions within LURA come into force (to the extent yet known).
Various changes to the planning enforcement system come into force on 25 April 2024. The most important one of general interest is possibly the “Ten Years After” ((c) Simonicity) provision: the time period in which local planning authorities can take enforcement action against unauthorised development in England is now, in all cases, 10 years (formerly four years in the case of unauthorised operational development or the change of use of any building (which includes any part of a building) to use as a single dwelling). The ability for this period to be extended in cases of concealment is unchanged.
The transitional provisions in Regulation 5 of the commencement regulations are important:
The amended time period does not apply in the case of operational development where the operations were substantially completed before 25 April 2024. The amended time period does not apply in the case of unauthorised change of use to a dwelling where the breach occurred before 25 April 2024. The latter appears more lenient than I was expecting – it seems that if the unauthorised use started say on 24 April 2024 it would be potentially lawful if not enforced against by 24 April 2028 and that if it were to start on 25 April 2024 it would be potentially lawful if not enforced against by 25 April 2034. Some difference. For owners of buildings potentially affected by the change, it will be important to have evidence of unlawful use (or, as the case may be, of unlawful operational development having been substantially completed), on or before 24 April.
I referred earlier to the 1971 Act – which was still in force for a few years when I first started practising. Looking back at it I’m reminded that enforcement time limits have constantly fluctuated over the years (and, my word, looking back, how much longer each Act is than its predecessor – eg see how the relevant section number appear later and later in the legislation):
1971 Act, section 87 : before the end of 1963 in the case of unauthorised change of use (this was getting progressively more difficult to prove when I started practice) or four years in the case of operational development, breach of condition and change to a dwelling
1990 Act (as amended), section 171B : ten years in the case of unauthorised change of use or breach of condition, or four years in the case of operational development or change to a dwelling, with the power for a Magistrates Court to make a planning enforcement order extending the deadline for enforcement in the case of deliberate concealment.
Back to the latest commencement regulations…
The other main planning enforcement changes being brought into force on 25 April are:
A local planning authority which suspects unauthorised works were carried out on a listed building will be able to issue a temporary stop notice requiring the works to stop for up to 56 days
Temporary stop notices will be able to have effect for up to 56 days rather than 28 days
A new power for a local planning authority in England to issue an enforcement warning notice asking the person concerned to submit a retrospective planning application within a specified period
Reduced ability for a person to lodge an appeal against an enforcement notice issued in England on ground “(a)” – that planning permission ought to be granted or that the condition or limitation imposed on the grant of permission ought to be discharged.
A new power for the Secretary of State to dismiss an appeal in relation to an enforcement notice or an appeal relating to a lawful development certificate in England, where it appears that the appellant is causing undue delay to the appeals process.
Increased fines.
All of this is by way of amendments to the 1990 Act. Wouldn’t a consolidating Act be helpful, 34 years after?
Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Or to take arms against a sea of troubles by amending your permission to reflect current market or occupier requirements? Because, of course, in the equally timeless words of Gary Barlow, everything changes.
The main part of this blog post is a detailed examination by my Town Legal colleague Susie Herbert of the potential opportunities arising from use of section 73B of the 1990 Act, introduced by way of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, and its potential limitations and ambiguities versus section 73. It’s an important part of DLUHC’s current consultation as to an accelerated planning system which I said I would come back to in my 9 March 2024 post that covered the rest of the proposals.
But first, an interesting appeal decision letter from last week. You may remember that for a temporary period (2013 to 2016) there was a specific statutory procedure, section 106BA, which allowed developers to apply to modify or discharge planning obligations in a section 106 agreement on the basis that they made the development unviable.
Since the repeal of section 106BA the question often arises as to how we might still achieve the same ends. After all, an application under section 106A to amend a section 106 agreement can only be made if the agreement is at least five years’ old. Otherwise, in proposing a deed of variation to the existing agreement, you are in the local planning authority’s hands with no right of appeal.
The alternative options would be to make an entirely fresh application for planning permission (an onerous process) or, conceivably, to make an application under section 73 for removal or variation of a condition attached to the previous planning permission and to use the application as a vehicle for proposing an amended form of planning obligation. The section 73 route was accepted by an inspector in a decision letter dated 25 March 2024 in relation to a proposed development in Thornton Heath, Croydon. There is an existing planning permission for 57 new dwellings , with a section 106 agreement requiring 35% of the homes to be delivered as affordable housing. A Section 73 application was made to amend condition 2 attached to the permission which set out a list of the approved drawings, proposing amended drawings increasing the proportion of three bedroom homes and external alterations to fenestration and elevations. A section 106 unilateral undertaking was put forward proposing no affordable housing, on the basis of a viability appraisal, which had been reviewed and accepted by the local planning authority. The application was not determined within the statutory period and the developer appealed. The authority resisted the appeal on the basis that a section 73 application was not the appropriate means to reduce the level of affordable housing previously secured.
Having reviewed the relevant case law in relation to section 73, the inspector allowed the appeal:
“In this instance, a change in policy has not made it appropriate or essential to amend the obligation. However, there has been a significant change in circumstances relating to the viability of the scheme. It seems to me that it is a matter of planning judgment whether the change in circumstances makes it appropriate, essential or desirable to enter into a planning obligation in different terms to the original. Given the case law outlined above, the terms of a new obligation may be connected to or intertwined with the amendments sought to the drawings, but there is nothing of substance to suggest they must. Consequently, it would be going too far to suggest an amended obligation must be a consequence of, or directly related to, changes flowing from the proposed alterations detailed on the new drawings.
There is no dispute between the Council and appellant that since the original permission was approved, and the evidence underpinning it prepared, construction costs have rapidly risen whilst house prices have remained static. This has had a significant impact on the viability of the scheme. As mentioned above, the situation is so altered that the Council and appellant agree the scheme can no longer provide affordable housing and remain viable. Moreover, there is also common ground that the provision of affordable housing is not a benefit, alone or taken with other factors, which is required to outweigh any harmful impacts emulating from the scheme. Indeed, the Council has only identified limited harm in respect of the housing mix, which is outweighed by other considerations in any event. In these circumstances, altering the level of affordable housing would not be a fundamental change to the proposal.
Therefore, the current circumstances are such that there is a need for a planning obligation in different terms to the original to facilitate delivery. The altered terms of the planning obligation would be consistent with the development plan taken as a whole. The consequence being that the change would not have a bearing on whether the scheme would be acceptable. Thus, the amended planning obligation is necessary, reasonable, supported by development plan policy and proportionate in the context of the prevailing circumstances. Therefore, it is desirable, essential and appropriate to consider a planning obligation in different terms to the original, namely the provision of 0% affordable housing with a review mechanism as required by the LP. In conclusion, the s73 application is an appropriate means in this instance to reduce the level of affordable housing relative to that previously secured.”
The case is another example of the potential flexibility of the existing section 73 procedure, notwithstanding the constraints imposed by the courts – particularly by way of Finney (the inability to use section 73 where the desired changes would be inconsistent with the description of development on the face of the existing permission (leading to a workaround in practice, with a willing authority, by way of use of section 96A in conjunction with section 73 – see my previous blog post here for more information).
Section 73B
So will the new section 73B procedure be the solution. Over to my colleague Susie Herbert for the detail…
On Budget Day, 6 March 2024, DLUHC launched a consultation on accelerating the planning system which closes on 1 May 2024. As well as proposals relating to the application process, this includes a consultation on the implementation of section 73B to vary planning permissions and on the treatment of overlapping permissions. This post concentrates on the proposals concerning variations to planning permissions via the new section 73B and the proposals for overlapping permissions.
Section 73B was introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (“LURA”). The provision is headed “Applications for permission not substantially different from existing permission”. It is not yet in force and secondary legislation is required to specify the application procedure including consultation arrangements, information requirements and the application fee as well as amendments to the CIL regulations. The government proposes to implement section 73B following the consultation “as soon as parliamentary time allows”.
The consultation asks questions on:
The scope of the proposed Planning Practice Guidance relating to section 73B;
Procedural arrangements for a section 73B application;
Application fees for section 73B applications;
CIL and section 73B applications.
As background, the introduction to this section of the consultation notes “The ability to vary planning permissions in a proportionate, transparent and timely manner is an important feature of the development management system. It is common for developments, particularly if they are large, to require variations to the planning permission in response to further detailed design work, new regulatory requirements, and changing market circumstances. Without this flexibility, development risks being delayed or abandoned as the only option would be the submission of a brand new application for the development which would create uncertainty, delay and further costs.”
The consultation notes that the current legislative routes to varying planning permissions are section 73 and section 96A. In 2009, guidance was introduced on “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permission”. It was at this point that section 96A was introduced into the legislation to allow for “non-material” amendments to existing planning permissions. The guidance envisaged that section 73 could be used for “minor-material” amendments by varying a condition that listed the approved plans by substituting new plans that showed the varied scheme.
However, in 2020, the Courts confirmed that section 73 cannot be used to amend the description of development (Finney). Therefore, the scope to use section 73 to make “minor material amendments” by varying a condition which lists the approved plans is limited.
Although not expressly explained in the consultation document, the reason that the inability to use section 73 to amend the description of development causes such difficulties in practice is because the case law has established that a permission granted under section 73 cannot introduce a condition which creates a conflict or is inconsistent with the description of development. It has therefore become standard practice to minimise the level of detail provided in the description of development and thereby reduce the potential for future scheme amendments to conflict with the description. In some cases an original description of development can be amended via s96A to remove detail from the description of development into a condition and thereafter amend this condition via section 73.
Section 73B is intended to deal with this issue by allowing both the description of development and the conditions to be varied in a single process. The restriction on the use of section 73B is that the amended development cannot be “substantially different” from the existing development.
“Subtantially different”
A key point in the consultation is that the Government does not propose to provide prescriptive guidance on is what is meant by “substantially different”. The consultation notes that section 73B does not provide a definition of the test and that it will depend on the scale of the changes required in the context of the existing permission. Factors that could be relevant are location and the scope of the existing permissions and the proposed changes.
It is not clear where “substantially different” will sit on the scale of potential changes. We note that this term was used in the 2009 guidance on flexible planning permissions in respect of what was meant by a “minor material amendment” which stated:
“We agree with the definition proposed by WYG: “A minor material amendment is one whose scale and nature results in a development which is not substantially different from the one which has been approved.” This is not a statutory definition.”
This suggests that the intention may have been that section 73B was intended to align with the minor material amendments that the guidance envisaged to be made under section 73 with the additional ability to amend the description of development (to make “non-substantial” changes).
However, since this drafting was introduced into the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, the Armstrong and Fiske cases have confirmed that section 73 is not restricted to minor material amendments. It is helpful that at footnote 4, the document expressly states that “the department acknowledges that section 73 is not limited in scope to minor material amendments” following the recent cases of Armstrong and Fiske. The judge in Fiske held that there is a restriction on the scope of section 73 which is whether the alteration is fundamental (while in Armstrong the judge had considered that even this restriction did not apply and the only restriction is consistency with the description of development).
Therefore, if the scope of changes allowed by section 73B is intended to be similar to “minor material amendments”, there is the possibility that section 73 would actually allow more flexibility as it extends to “not fundamental” amendments (provided always that it is possible to remain within the description of development).
While it is understandable that the Government does not propose to provide prescriptive guidance on the meaning of “substantially different” because it will be a matter of judgement dependent on the context (as for section 96A), it is clear that the application and interpretation of this provision by each LPA is going to be a key to how useful this provision is in practice.
The consultation states that the government’s proposed objective is for the section 73B route to replace the use of section 73 to deal with proposals for general material variations while the use section 73 would return to focus on the variation of specific conditions and that it proposes to introduce guidance to this effect.
It would therefore be helpful if the scope of changes allowed under section 73B was not less that the scope of changes that could be made via a section 73/ section 96A approach: otherwise the end result of the changes would be more complexity but less flexibility. It does not seem that it would be overly prescriptive for the Government to provide guidance to this effect. It would also be consistent with the general proposed approach of treating a section 73B application in a similar way to a section 73 application in terms of procedure (as detailed below).
Features of section 73B
The consultation summarises the key legal features of section 73B as follows:
a section 73B application must identify the existing permission (which cannot be a section 73, section 73A or other section 73B permission, or permission granted by development order), and can propose conditions for the new permission;
as an application for planning permission to a local planning authority, the determination of a section 73B application is subject to section 70 and other decision making duties. But the local planning authority cannot grant permission for a section 73B application if the effect of the section 73B permission would be substantially different from the existing permission, and when determining the application, they must limit their consideration to the variation between the application and the existing permission; and
like a section 73 permission, a section 73B permission is a separate permission to the existing permission (and any other section 73 or 73B permissions related to the existing permission) so the granting of a section 73B permission does not affect the validity of the existing permission (or other section 73 or 73B permissions).
The provision also applies to applications for permission in principle.
Proposed general approach
As noted above, the Government’s proposed objective is for the section 73B route to replace the use of section 73 to deal with proposals for general material variations while the use section 73 would return to focus on the variation of specific conditions. The consultation notes that because section 73 cannot be used to amend the description of development, it has become common practice to submit generic descriptions of development which do not specify key feature such as the number of dwellings with those details set out in conditions to allow them to be varied via section 73. The consultation identifies that a benefit of using section 73B would be to allow a return to clear and more specific descriptions which would help improve the transparency of development proposals for local communities.
The Government therefore proposes to use Planning Practice Guidance to encourage the use of clearer, more transparent descriptors of development and the use of section 73B to deal with general material changes to development granted planning permission. The consultation asks “do you agree that guidance should encourage clearer descriptors of development for planning permissions and section 73B to become the route to make general variations to planning permissions (rather than section 73)? (Question 26)” and “also for any further comments on the scope of the guidance (Question 27)”. This includes the question of whether the guidance should discourage the use of the, now standard, condition which lists approved plans which was introduced to facilitate minor-material amendments via section 73. The consultation states that they are not minded to discourage the use of this condition and that it is beneficial to help support effective planning enforcement, particularly in relation to design.
Procedural arrangements
The aim is for the procedural requirements set out in regulations for a section 73B application to be “proportionate reflecting the position that the development proposed in the application is a material variation to an existing permission while still ensuring there is transparency about the proposed variation” and that “Local communities should be aware of proposed variations so they can make representations: the section 73B route is not a mechanism to undermine scrutiny.”
The proposal is:
information requirements will be generally the same as other applications for planning permission but certain requirements (such as a design and access statement) will not be required.
publicity requirements will be the same as other applications for the type of development (i.e. if it is a variation to major development, the major development publicity requirements would apply).
Consultation with statutory consultees would follow the approach of section 73 applications where there is a duty on the local planning authority to consult a statutory consultee if they consider appropriate (reflecting the position that a proposed variation may only engage specific issues which of an interest to only some statutory consultees and so it would be disproportionate to require those statutory consultees without an interest to respond) although the footnote states that applications would automatically be in scope of the consultation duty between counties and district LPAs, the consultation arrangements for parishes and neighbourhood forums and the arrangements for applications of potential strategic importance under section 2A TCPA 1990 for the Mayor of London and those combined authorities which have section 2A powers.
EIA and HRA requirements would apply as for section 73 permissions and a similar approach would be taken to Biodiversity Net Gain.
The consultation asks whether consultees agree with this proposed approach to procedural requirements.
Fees
The proposal is to align the fee for a section 73B application with the fee for a section 73 application. The alternative approach of setting a higher fee for a section 73B application was considered on the basis that the section 73B route could be the default route for general material variations while section 73 focuses on the variation of a specific condition. However, the higher fee could encourage applicants to continue to use section 73, undermining the purpose of the reform.
However, it is proposed to change the current flat fee approach for a section 73 application (£293) so that there would be three separate fee bands for householder, non-major development and major development.
The householder fee would be reduced to £86 (double the fee for discharge of condition and removing the anomaly that an original householder application fee is lower than the section 73 fee). The non-major development fee would remain at £293.
For major development, there would be a higher fee which would be less than the fee for the original application and proportionate to the work necessary to consider the proposed variation (without exceeding full cost recovery). The consultation asks for views about where this fee should be set, including evidence from local planning authorities for the typical work which is involved dealing with an average section 73 application for a major development.
CIL
It is proposed that CIL would apply to section 73B in the same way that it applies to section 73 permissions. This would mean that “if the section 73B permission does not change the CIL liability, the chargeable amount is that shown in the most recent liability notice issued in relation to the previous permission. But if the section 73B permission does change the CIL liability, the most recently commenced or re-commenced scheme is liable for the levy.”
Overlapping permissions and section 73B
The consultation refers to the recent Hillside and Dennis cases on overlapping permissions [see previous simonicity blog posts respectively here and here] and how these judgments have questioned the ability to use ‘drop in’ permissions where a subsequent permission is granted for an alternative development on a section of a larger development previously granted permission and still being implemented.
It summarises Hillside as confirming existing caselaw that “full planning permissions are not usually severable. That is to say, parts of the permission cannot be selectively implemented and that, if a new permission which overlaps with an existing permission in a material way commences, should the carrying out of the new permission make it physically impossible to carry out the rest of the existing permission, it would be unlawful to continue further development under the existing permission. The Court then went on to say, if someone wanted to change part of the development, they should seek to amend the entire existing permission.” And notes that Dennis considered the implications for outline planning permissions and the question of severability further.
It notes that “drop in permissions have often been used during the implementation of outline planning permissions for large scale phased residential and commercial developments where a new development is proposed through a separate application for a phase outside the scope of the outline planning permission while the rest of the phases continue to be implemented under the outline permission. This approach has provided a flexible way of enabling changes to a specific phase to be managed through planning without having to seek a new planning permission for the entire development, particularly when the scale of change is outside the scope of a section 73 application.”
In terms of section 73B, “The government believes that the new section 73B route provides a new way of dealing with such changes to a specific phase of a large scale development granted through outline planning permission in many cases. While the use of section 73B is constrained by the substantively different test, these changes often continue to fit within the existing masterplan which underpins the outline permission and do not necessarily fundamentally change this permission – for instance, changing a phase of commercial development (use class E) to a cinema (use class – sui genesis) where the outline permission only allows class E uses. In this case, the section 73B application would provide details of the proposed variation to the outline planning permission and the consideration by the local planning authority would focus on the merits of this variation.”
However it is recognised that “there could be circumstances where the section 73B route may not be appropriate – for instance, if the change could be considered to be substantially different or there are wider financial and legal relationships between the master developer, land owners and investors which makes the preparation of a section 73B application difficult.”
The consultation asks for views about the extent to which the section 73B route could be used to grant permission for changes for outline planning permission in practice and what the constraints are.
It is clearly helpful that the consultation acknowledges that a new use could be introduced via section 73B which gives more potential flexibility and simplicity than a section 73 approach. However, as noted, changes may well be considered “substantially different” even if they allow the remainder of a masterplan to be developed without amendment. There are also undoubtably complications in obtaining a new planning permission (even a section 73B) for an entire site where development has started and different plots are being developed by different developers, particularly if a section 106 agreement is required to be varied.
The final section of the consultation is a proposal to create a framework through a new general development order to deal with circumstances that cannot be addressed via section 73B. This general development order would deal with overlapping permissions in certain prescribed circumstances. It notes that the Secretary of State has broad powers under section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act to provide for the granting of planning permission through an order, including classes of development. This may be for a specific development or for a class of development.
The consultation asks for views on whether the focus of such an approach should be on outline permissions for largescale phased development or whether there are any other categories of development which could benefit from an alternative approach.
The consultation questions are:
Question 33. Can you provide evidence about the use of the ‘drop in’ permissions and the extent the Hillside judgment has affected development?
Question 34. To what extent could the use of section 73B provide an alternative to the use of drop in permissions?
Question 35. If section 73B cannot address all circumstances, do you have views about the use of a general development order to deal with overlapping permissions related to large scale development granted through outline planning permission?
It is not clear what the general development order proposal would entail but it is clear that an alternative approach for circumstances where section 73B cannot be used would be valuable and it is encouraging that the government is exploring further options to address the Hillside issue.
Thanks Susie for the above. Given ongoing concerns that I suspect many of us have both as to the need for a proportionate procedure for amending permissions but also more specifically to find a solution to the unnecessary complexities we all face by way of Hillside and Dennis, this is going to be an important consultation process.
The uncertainties as to whether “minor material” “substantially different” and “fundamental alteration” also bring to mind the consideration given recently by the Planning Court to whether, in the NPPF, “substantial” has a different meaning to “significant“, in Ward v Secretary of State (Lang J, 25 March 2024) (answer, after lengthy and unnecessary confusion which could have been prevented by accurate language used at the outset: nope).
Simon Ricketts, 1 April 2024
Personal views, et cetera
Edwin Booth as William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, circa 1870, courtesy Wikipedia
Peter Ellis sent me overnight a judgment in the Chancery Division of the High Court from Friday: Cotham School v Bristol City Council (HHJ Paul Matthews, 2 February 2024) – part of the convoluted saga of whether some school playing fields had been wrongly registered as a town green. Peter particularly liked, as do I, the judge’s quote from George Bernard Shaw (paragraph 12):
“This kind of legal treasure hunt, searching in the interstices of secondary legislation for the text of the currently applicable law, and holding several inconsistent ideas in your mind simultaneously, is certainly not for the faint-hearted. How lay people can deal with it is beyond me. Little wonder that George Bernard Shaw once wrote that professions “are all conspiracies against the laity” (Preface to The Doctor’s Dilemma, 1906).”
Nice one. Whether we’re laity or lawyers, “treasure hunt” is exactly how it feels as we try to work out when, how and if elements of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 will be brought into force.
As of 31 January 2024 a whole range of provisions relevant to the planning system has been switched on, namely:
“(a) [ ]
(b) [ ]
(c)section 94 (national development management policies: meaning);
(d)section 106 (street votes), so far as it confers a power to make regulations and so far as it relates to the provisions of Schedule 9 brought into force by paragraph (q);
(e)section 107 (street votes: community infrastructure levy), so far as it confers a power to make regulations;
(f)section 123 (duty in relation to self-build and custom housebuilding);
(g)section 129 (hazardous substances consent: connected applications to the Secretary of State);
(h)section 140 (enforcement of community infrastructure levy);
(i)section 180 (acquisition by local authorities for purpose of regeneration);
(j)section 181 (online publicity), so far as it confers a power to make regulations;
(k)section 184 (corresponding provision for purchases by Ministers), so far as it relates to the provisions of Schedule 19 brought into force by paragraph (r);
(l)section 185 (time limits for implementation);
(m)section 186 (agreement to vary vesting date);
(n)section 187 (common standards for compulsory purchase data);
(o)section 188 (‘no-scheme’ principle: minor amendments);
(p)Schedule 5 [ ]
(q)paragraph 1 (Town and Country Planning Act 1990), sub-paragraphs (6) to (10) of Schedule 9 (street votes: minor and consequential amendments), so far as they confer a power to make a development order;
(r)paragraph 1 (online publicity) of Schedule 19 (compulsory purchase: corresponding provision for purchases by Ministers), so far as it confers a power to make regulations.”
However, care is needed. In most cases, the bringing into force of these sections simply enables the Secretary of State to introduce the actual changes without any changes yet “on the ground”. Looking through the sections, the only exceptions to that in the above list (save for some minor and unexciting tweaks to the wording of some provisions) appear to be various provisions in relation to compulsory purchase – eg acquisition for “improvement” can include “regeneration”; the possibility for the confirming authority to provide for an implementation deadline of more than three years, and the possibility for the authority to agree a postponed vesting date and minor amendments to the “no scheme” principle in section 6D of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (from the explanatory notes at the end of the Regulations: “These sections provide that where land is acquired for regeneration or redevelopment which is facilitated or made possible by a relevant transport project, the ‘scheme’ includes the relevant transport project. The amendments ensure that the definition of ‘scheme’ includes any re-development, regeneration and improvement that form part of the ‘scheme’).
As of 12 February 2024 the biodiversity net gain regime is switched on (albeit, as we know, with later dates for minor development and for NSIPs).
As of 30 April 2024, section 190 of the Act (power to require prospects of planning permission to be ignored) comes into force, in relation to England. This is the big “ignore hope value in some situations” one – from the explanatory notes: “The amendments allow confirming authorities, in relation to certain public sector acquiring authorities exercising certain CPO powers, to direct that the value associated with the following matters are not payable, provided doing so is in the public interest: (a) the prospect of the grant of a planning permission; and (b) compensation for the loss of the potential of development for which there was a reasonable expectation that planning permission would have been granted in the absence of the CPO”) and as of 31 January 2025 section 189 of the Act (prospects of planning permission for alternative development) comes into force (from the explanatory notes: “The amendments make various changes including to when prospective planning permission is to be treated as certain, what certificates of appropriate alternative development should contain, to clarify when the relevant planning date falls, whether account should be taken of the expenses incurred in the issue of a certificate, and corresponding amendments to the process of appeals to the Upper Tribunal against certificates”)– I’ll leave others to look at these in more detail. There are transitional provisions set out in Regulation 6 of the Regulations.
Ugh, that was hard yards. NB if you want to understand what drives me to continue writing these interminable posts, you might want to listen to the latest Hitting the High Notes/50 Shades of Planning podcast, where Sam Stafford interviews me and asks me exactly that question, maybe not quite in those terms. Listen here .
I know we are all trying to wind down, or maybe are slumped there fully unwound already, I do know that, I do see you. However, I couldn’t let a DLUHC consultation paper just slip out unnoticed on 22 December…
The consultation paper summarises as follows how SVDOs will work in practice:
“11. A group of residents which meets certain requirements will be able to come together with a proposal for permission to be granted for development on their street, for example the addition of an extra storey to properties. The proposal can be put forward by the group of residents directly or with the assistance of an individual such as an architect.
12. The proposal will be examined by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State to check that the proposed development is in scope and that requirements prescribed in secondary legislation are met. These requirements will help ensure that development meets high design standards and that local impacts are taken into account.
13. If the proposal passes the examination, it is then put to a referendum. Where the required threshold of votes is met, subject to any final checks, the Planning Inspectorate will make the street vote development order on behalf of the Secretary of State. Once the street vote development order is made, granting planning permission, a person with control of the land can then decide whether they want to take forward development.
14. Where street vote development takes place, local authorities will be able to capture value from the new development via the Community Infrastructure Levy and, when it is introduced, the new Infrastructure Levy, and use it to fund infrastructure that will support the local area.”
The Government proposes that for the procedure to be available there will need to be at least ten residential properties in the street, with rules as to the minimum size of the qualifying group of voters and percentage of votes required as follows:
It is proposed that any proposal must include:
“a signed and witnessed letter from members of the qualifying group declaring that they support the proposal, where a proposal has been submitted on their behalf
a map which identifies the street area and the land in that street area to which the proposal relates
a draft order which includes a description of the development to which the order relates and any proposed planning conditions
any necessary supporting information such as impact assessments or statements. Further information is set out in the “Managing local impacts” section of this consultation
details of any consultation with statutory bodies
a declaration that the qualifying group has engaged with the local community”
“21. In addition, we propose that qualifying groups (or those acting on their behalf) must submit a street design code that sets out illustrated design parameters for physical development within the street area such as number of floors, plot use and the facade treatment of buildings.
22. We also propose qualifying groups (or those acting on their behalf) will have the option to submit a detailed specification of the elevations visible from public spaces for new or extended buildings that are permitted in the street area. If these are submitted, they must include at least one detailed elevation drawing for facades facing public spaces. Specifications of elevations not facing public spaces are optional. Qualifying groups may provide various façade options if a varied streetscape is desired.
23. If plot widths in the street area vary, the specification must include requirements on how the elevations can be adapted to deal with such variation. If they wish, qualifying groups may also choose to include permitted elevations for wider buildings that can be created by merging plots e.g. an elevation for a small mansion block created by merging three existing plots.”
A ”street area” is to be defined as “the properties on each stretch of road starting or ending at a crossroads or as a minor road at a T-junction or where there is a gap between buildings of more than 50 metres. A street is treated as terminated if the continuous stretch of buildings is broken by a bridge wider than 3 metres. This applies to both the street running beneath and over the bridge. A residential property is counted as being in a street area if any part of its boundary runs along the highway. The street area must have at least 10 residential properties within its boundary. We also propose that adjoining streets could be joined together to form one street area, for example, joining together two streets that have fewer than 10 residential properties.”
Detailed design requirements are set out in a table at paragraph 35 of the consultation document, informed by six design principles:
Supporting a gradual evolution in the character of neighbourhoods
Limiting impacts on neighbours
Preserving green space and increasing outdoor space (including balconies)
Celebrating heritage
Promoting active travel
Creating sociable neighbourhoods
If you look at the paragraph 35 table you will see that there is much detail as to for instance, the maximum number of extra storeys (dependent on the density of the area); setbacks; basements; angled light planes; ceiling heights and corner properties.
It is proposed that “street vote development orders should be permitted to go beyond that which might be permitted under the local development plan where the impacts are broadly acceptable in the view of the Secretary of State according to national policy, and it will not cause problems with the implementation of the local plan.”
If the proposal survives examination and the necessary referendum, the Government hasn’t yet decided how long property owners will have to commence development:
“Option A: Development must be commenced within 10 years of the order being made. This is longer than is typically allowed for planning permission granted through existing consent routes because the permission will potentially apply to properties under many different owners, some of which may not be able to commence development within a shorter period (e.g. 3 years). The qualifying group would also have the option to propose an increase to this period as part of its proposal if it takes the view more time is needed to commence development;
Option B: Development must be commenced within a specified period (e.g.10, 20 or 30) years of the order being made. The qualifying group would also have the option to apply to the local planning authority after the order has been made to extend the commencement period; and
Option C: No time period. Permission granted through a street vote development order would be permanent.”
In summary, there’s a lot here for local planning authorities, planning professionals and (above all) home owners to get their heads around. The concept has been widely lobbied for by eg Policy Exchange, Create Streets and YIMBY. I’ll be interested to see the extent to which ultimately there is take-up and, aside from the inevitable definitional problems with any rules-based process such as this, of course there are some open questions as to the extent to which this process, alongside continuing extensions of permitted development rights and the prospect of national development management policies, further marginalises the role of the local planning authority. And does anyone remember neighbourhood development orders and all of that malarkey…?
But something to be picked up again on the other side, as they say.
In the meantime, peace to all in 24 – even to those I may be seeing across a planning inquiry or court room!
That timescale assumed that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would receive Royal Assent that Spring. Ho ho ho. The Act finally received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, although, as set out in my 4 November 2023 blog post Act Up!, nothing substantive has yet come into force, most elements requiring secondary legislation with only limited sections being switched on from Boxing Day. (My firm has prepared a detailed summary of the planning reform aspects of the Act, running to some 41 pages. Do message or email me if you would like a copy.)
Judging from the tone of DLUHC’s 28 November 2023 response to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee’s reforms to national planning policy report, together with Mr Gove’s appearance before the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee on 6 December 2023, we assume that the final version of the NPPF will reflect quite closely the December 2022 draft, but time will tell.
Of course, barring a general election in the meantime, in 2024 we will then have consultation on further proposed revisions to the NPPF, to reflect LURA’s proposed reforms to plan-making, and consultation on much else besides.
In the meantime, 2023 has seen yet more ministerial changes with Rachel Maclean sacked in favour of an expanded role for Lee Rowley. There have been at best sporadic attempts to discourage local authorities from withdrawing emerging plans (Spelthorne and Erewash). There has been a self-styled long-term plan for housing. There have been sporadic culture wars – for example the swipe at South Cambridgeshire District Council for its four-day working week trial (anyone remember localism? I have an old book to flog).
Spotify-style, I looked back at which simonicity posts were most widely read, last year. Perhaps this list tells its own story – one of procedural hurdles, unnecessary complexity and political climbdowns. In order:
M&S Mess (21 July 2023). We wait to see what the High Court makes of Mr Gove’s 20 July 2023 decision letter.
The Government’s Big Move On Nutrient Neutrality – Now We Have Seen The Government’s LURB Amendment (29 August 2023). The subsequent defeat suffered by the Government on this in the House of Lords was possibly DLUHC’s most embarrassing moment of the year, when taken with the subsequent, aborted, attempt by the Government to introduce a fresh Bill.
Euston We Have A Problem (8 July 2023). Subsequent to the post there was then of course the Government’s total abandonment of proposals for HS2 north of Birmingham (see my 4 October 2023 blog post, Drive Time) and wishful thinking as to a privately funded terminus for HS2 at Euston. It will be interesting to see what happens this coming year to the idea of a new “Euston Quarter” Development Corporation.
Incidentally, thank you everyone for continuing to read this blog, now in its eighth year (with more daily views than ever before), and for occasionally saying nice things about it. Believe me, I would otherwise have given up a long time ago. I did hope that I could pass it over to chatGPT next year but from early experimentation I suspect not:
Following royal assent on 26 October 2023, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 was finally published on 3 November 2023.
My, this has been some development project. The Bill was introduced into Parliament on 11 May 2022. Due particularly to the amendments introduced at report stage in the House of Lords and subsequent ping pong between the Commons and Lords (which saw all except one of those ultimately rejected), tracking through to work out the final form of the provisions has not been straight forward without sight until yesterday of the final version,
This is still not of course a completed development. The Act just gets the majority of its contents to “shell and core”. Secondary legislation will be needed to complete the job. Timescales for the substantive changes being brought into force? Shrugging shoulders emoji.
Nicola Gooch’s updated commencement table , drawing on section 255 (commencement and transitional provisions) is a useful guide to where we are with most of the planning-related provisions. Some additional comments:
Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Bill (sections 92 to 101) covers development plans, national development management policies, the London Plan and neighbourhood plans and none of this will come into force until such day as the Secretary of State appoints by way of Regulations. The reality is that the Government first needs to conclude its detailed position on implementing the proposed plan-making reforms, following its 25 July 2023 consultation paper. The transitional arrangements announced in that consultation paper were as follows:
“We confirm our intention that the latest date for plan-makers to submit local plans, minerals and waste plans, and spatial development strategies for examination under the current system will be 30 June 2025. We also confirm our intention that those plans will, in general, need to be adopted by 31 December 2026. As referred to above, these dates are contingent upon Royal Assent of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, as well as Parliamentary approval of the relevant regulations. However, we are setting this out now to provide planning authorities with as much notice as possible of these dates.”
“We confirm our intention to have in place the regulations, policy and guidance by autumn 2024 to enable the preparation of the first new-style local plans and minerals and waste plans. As set out above, this deadline is contingent upon Royal Assent of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, as well as Parliamentary approval of the relevant regulations.”
The Government consulted on options for a phased roll-out of new local plans, to ensure a smooth transition. We don’t yet know the outcome of this.
In terms of protection from speculative development in the meantime:
“We also intend to set out that plans that will become more than 5 years old during the first 30 months of the new system (i.e. while the local planning authority is preparing their new plan), will continue to be considered ‘up-to-date’ for decision-making purposes for 30 months after the new system starts.
Additionally, where a plan has been found sound subject to an early update requirement, and the Inspector has given a deadline to submit an updated plan within the first 30 months of the new system going live, this deadline will be extended to 30 months after the new system goes live. This will ensure that local planning authorities are protected from the risk of speculative development while preparing their new plan.”
This could be extended, depending on the roll-out option adopted.
There has been some discussion around the planning enforcement provisions, particularly as to the extension in England to ten years of the current four years’ deadline for enforcement in the case of building operations and unauthorised change of use of a building to a dwelling. The change will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State appoints by way of Regulations. We don’t yet know whether the Regulations will include any transitional protection – I wouldn’t bet on it. Accordingly, if you are currently in that four to ten year danger zone you might think about applying for a certificate of lawfulness.
Fast track DCOs will in theory be possible from 26 December 2023, together with the power for the Secretary of State to make non-material changes to DCOs, which is when sections 127 and 128 come into force. In practice I assume that we will need the Government to have concluded its detailed thinking on reforms to the DCO process following its 25 July 2023 consultation paper.
Part 4 of the Act deals with the infrastructure levy and, like much of the Act, will not come into force until the Secretary of State introduces Regulations to that effect. Again we await the outcome of the consultation process which took place earlier this year, as to the detail.
This is just a first and very much incomplete dip into the Act, now that we finally have it to hand. I look forward to publication of the official accompanying explanatory notes and, no doubt, a winter blizzard of summaries as to what it all will mean in practice. Part of the difficulty arising from this long LURB soap opera period since last May is that we do need to come back to the final text with fresh eyes so as to work out what it is likely to mean for what we do – and most importantly, when!
And still we wait for the final version of the updated NPPF…
SIMONICITY 