Comment

Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill consultation: Overview and observations

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB), which is currently at the report stage in the House of Lords, seeks to introduce a significantly revised plan-making process. The intention is for simpler plans that are faster to prepare and more accessible.

The LURB itself is light on the specifics of how the revised plan-making process would be implemented, leaving it instead to further legislation. On 25 July 2023, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DHLUHC) commenced consultation on further details of how the reforms to the plan-making process would be implemented, notwithstanding that the LURB has yet to receive Royal Assent.

Executive Chair, Dave Trimingham and Associate Director, Paul Forshaw provide their thoughts on the wider context of this announcement and an overview of proposed changes to the plan-making system.

The introduction to the consultation says:

“We want [local plans] to be prepared more quickly and updated more frequently to ensure more authorities have up to date plans that reflect local needs.”

The main aims of the changes to the plan-making system in the consultation document can be summarised as:

• Making the role and content of plans clearer;
• Speeding up the process for preparing a plan;
• Ensuring local communities are engaged;
• Reducing complexity; and
• Making the most of digital technology.

Few would disagree with these aims. The question is whether the proposed system will achieve it.

Spoiler: it is hard to be sure either way because the consultation sets a “direction of travel” with much of the detail to be the subject of future regulations; policy updates; and guidance.

Before we look at the consultation itself a few general observations are important.

A welcome boost of speed?

The proposed approach is radically different. It has to be. If the objective is to more than halve the average seven years it takes to adopt a plan, and coverage is to get above the pitiful 39% of authorities in England with an up-to-date plan, big changes are needed. Details of proposals for “gateway assessments” of plans and “freezing” of evidence at certain points are significant departures from the current approach which could significantly speed up plan-making.

System changes alone are not enough

It is not just the system that has to change. For it to work, plan-makers will need to be bolder. Prescribing less evidence; shortening the process; inviting more community input are all essential. But no plan will proceed unless decision-makers overcome their aversion to risk – legal, procedural, and political – that is the root of much of the current intention. Systems needs good operators – and in the case of planners, many more of them. Resourcing is at least as big a challenge as the plan-making process itself.

We need to deliver for places and people

For the new approach to work all participants – plan-makers; politicians; communities; and the industry – will also need to be ready to make and accept decisions on imperfect and sometimes conflicting evidence. The timescales envisaged simply will not allow the now default practices of commissioning more and more evidence; pausing when things get tricky; or undertaking additional rounds of consultation. Rather than an almost judicial burden of evidence, plan-making needs to get back to delivering what is in the best interests of the place and people being planned for. These require planning judgement and political resolve.

Proposed changes to the plan-making system

We summarise the main proposals in the consultation below.

Reducing complexity and making the role and content of plans clearer

Proposals intend that the new generation of Local Plans should:

• Be much shorter and should comprise of a single document.
• Be more visual. They should contain more diagrams and plans / maps. They should also be in digital format (more on this later).
• Contain a strategic vision which acts as a “golden thread” throughout the Local Plan. Policies and allocations should be directly linked to the outcomes set in the vision, which should set out measurable outcomes. The vision should be informed by consultation and should take account of the strategies of other bodies.
• Contain policies and allocations for the amount, type, location, and timing of development.
• Contain “ambitious locally distinctive policies” which meet key economic, social, and environmental objectives linked to the plan’s vision and recognise the importance of good design.
• Set out a detailed approach to monitoring and ongoing review.
• Include a proposals map, which should be digital and interactive.
• Be subject to an assessment through an Environmental Outcomes Report (once the necessary regulations are in place to replace the current Strategic Environmental Assessment requirement).
• Contain no, or very few development management policies.  Development management policies will instead be set out in a suite of National Development Management Policies (NDMP). Where a Local Plan is to include development management policies these should be focused on genuine local matters, not repeating any policies in the NDMP.

Shorter, simpler and more accessible plans are welcome. It is hoped that they will still provide sufficient levels of detail to ensure certainty on how planning applications will be assessed. This will apply particularly in scenarios where development sites are not allocated in the Local Plan.

The consistency offered by NDMP is welcome but without further guidance on what they will relate to it is hard to judge how much time they will save in plan-making or their impacts on decision-making.

Speeding up the process for preparing a plan

The consultation document states that under the current system, on average it takes seven years to produce a Local Plan. It highlights that only 35% of local authorities have adopted a Local Plan in the past five years. In order to speed up the process, the consultation proposes to set a 30-month timescale within which a Local Plan must be prepared.

A 30-month timescale for the preparation of a Local Plan is ambitious, particularly in the current climate where local authorities’ planning policy departments are under-resourced. However, the consultation document does not set out any consequences if plan preparation exceeds this 30-month timescale, and the 30-month timeframe would only apply to the formal stage of plan preparation. Local authorities would be able to undertake a formal preparation process for an undefined period before the 30-month timeframe commences. This would include evidence gathering, scoping the content of the plan, and identifying key environmental issues.

The new approach would strip out some of the current processes and requirements, which the Government considers would make the process more streamlined and efficient. These include:

• Requiring less evidence, including removal of the “justified” test of soundness.
• Providing a more standardised process though the use of templates and toolkits that would make evidence easier to obtain and more standardised.
• Allowing the “freezing” of evidence at certain points in the process, so that it would not require updating.  An Inspector would however be able to request an update to evidence where they consider it necessary
• Reducing the need for formal sign off by local authority members (although it is unclear on how this will work in practice, as authorities have their own constitutions that set out requirements for sign off of various stages of plan-making).
• Early participation from statutory consultees would also be a requirement through a “Requirement to Assist” process, where local authorities will have the power to legally require statutory consultees to provide assistance in developing or reviewing plans.

Significant changes to the way in which Planning Inspectors examine plans are also proposed.  “Gateway Assessments” would be introduced at three stages of the process. The first would take place at the beginning of the 30-month period, where an Inspector would check that the scope of the plan is correct, and the supporting evidence is proportionate. Gateway 2 would take place between the mandatory consultation periods (see below) and would look to assist in resolving any early soundness issues. Those two stage Gateway Assessments would be advisory only. The third Gateway Assessment would take place before the local authority submits the Local Plan for Examination. It would be a “stop / go” check, with an Inspector assessing whether the plan was ready to be submitted for Examination.

The aim of these Gateway Assessments is to reduce the timeframes and level of work required once the plan does reach Examination. Examinations would be shorter and would only focus on issues critical to soundness. These are welcome steps which Turley and others have been calling for for many years. Gateway assessments would help ensure consistency and avoid abortive work. 

Ensuring local communities are engaged

The proposed reforms seek to increase the level of engagement during the plan-making process. Focus will be on digitising the plan-making process, with a view to reaching a broader audience for consultations. This would supplement, rather than replace more traditional forms of consultation. Funding will be provided to local authorities for them to improve their digital capabilities and a digital toolkit will be produced to assist the preparation of consultation material.

In terms of the level of consultation on Local Plans, Regulations will provide further detail, but the consultation document sets out that there will be two mandatory consultation windows. The first would take place after the first Gateway Assessment and would last for eight weeks. The second would take place shortly before the final Gateway Assessment and would be a minimum of six weeks long. Local authorities will also be encouraged to engage with the community ahead of the 30-month period commencing.

Communities have become much more used to engaging in the planning process digitally. Implemented well the proposals could ensure more diverse and representative participation in plan-making. The emphasis on engagement in the vision and spatial strategy stage of a plan could also mitigate the effect of localised opposition that often occurs almost irrespective of where development is proposed. 

Supplementary Plans

Whilst the consultation proposes that Local Plans will comprise of a single document, it does recognise that there may be instances where additional documents or “Supplementary Plans” are required. These will replace the current system of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) and Area Action Plans (AAPs), but should only be produced when there is a need to respond to unanticipated changes in their area, such as an unexpected regeneration opportunity arising. They should only be prepared therefore in exceptional circumstances.

The LURB puts limits on scope of Supplementary Plans. They will be limited geographically to matters relating to a specific site or two or more nearby sites, thereby addressing only site-specific matters that require a new planning framework to be prepared quickly.

Given the LURB’s focus on increasing public involvement, unlike existing SPDs and AAPs, Supplementary Plans will be subject to formal public consultation. Requirements will be set out in Regulations, but it is expected that there will need to be at least one formal consultation stage. Supplementary Plans will be subject to an examination that is broadly similar to the current process for Neighbourhood Plans.

Community Land Auctions 

The LURB will introduce a pilot scheme for Community Land Auctions (CLA). These will make allocations a competitive process similar to tendering.

Further detail of how CLA would work is set out in the consultation document. Landowners would effectively “pitch” their site for allocation, in competition with others, setting out the price they would be prepared to sell their land for. The local authority could take an option on land on these terms. It would then decide which site(s) to allocate and would be able to take account of land value capture in deciding what to allocate. Guidance is promised on how local authorities should exercise their decision making in this context.

Transitional provisions

The consultation document provides details of proposed transition provisions from the current plan-making system to the new system. These include:

• Current plans and saved policies remain until replaced by a plan under new system;
• Emerging plans under current system should be submitted by June 2025 and adopted by December 2026. Otherwise, a plan must be prepared under the new system; and
• Once plans are adopted under the current system a review must commence within five years under the new system.

This seems to allow a reasonable time for emerging plans that are at an advanced stage under the current system to proceed to adoption. It is to be hoped that whenever the revised NPPF emerges (expected in the autumn) it sets a clear expectation that such plans should proceed under the current (2021) NPPF and not be revisited in the context of any subsequent changes. 

The consultation runs until 18 October 2023. Please contact Paul Forshaw or Dave Trimingham to discuss.

31 July 2023