The Government invited views to inform further policy development and explored how different site sizes should be treated within the planning system, inviting views on reforming site thresholds through a gradated approach to the system as a whole.
Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities
3rd Floor, Fry Building
Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Dear Planning Team,
I am writing in response to the government’s planning reform working paper Reforming Site Thresholds.
It is broadly recognised that the current way in which applications are categorised based on site size has resulted in 'disproportionate requirements on small and medium sites', as the working paper highlights. All applications of 10 or more units being categorised as major has had unintended consequences whereby schemes of 15 houses are treated in the same or similar way in the planning system to those of 1500 and increased the burden on small and medium developers.
However, the working paper fails to recognise that, for local authorities, they have the same statutory timescales (13 weeks) to determine applications for both 11 and 1111 units. We urge the Government that a review of statutory timescales to determine applications must come hand in hand with proposals to reform site thresholds, should they take them forward, and are disappointed this was not acknowledged or referenced in the working paper. Statutory timescales for application determinations have remained unchanged since their introduction in the 1990s, despite the marked increase in complexity and volume of considerations involved in modern planning applications. In light of this evolution, maintaining outdated timescales is increasingly indefensible and risks undermining the efficiency and credibility of the planning system.
Validation requirements
Local authorities have expressed concerns about a potential reduction in validation requirements, arguing instead that these should be strengthened. They noted a general decline in the quality of submitted applications, which has led to significant time being spent by officers on repeated communications with applicants. This back-and-forth is often necessary to ensure that planning officers receive accurate and complete information to make informed determinations.
Government should consider our views as expressed in responses to DEFRA’s 'Improving the implementation of biodiversity net gain for minor, medium and brownfield development' consultation and MHCLG’s 'Reform of Planning Committees' consultation in relation to validation requirements and delegated decision making.
Government should also set out in clear detail their proposals for the role of statutory consultees in the planning process.
Reforming site size thresholds
Local authorities expressed concern at the proposed uplift to the Permission in Principle (PIP) threshold that could be introduced alongside medium site size applications (10 to 49 units), and the implications this may have on design and local accountability for decision-making.
Further, introducing a medium site threshold, and then potentially exempting those sites from the being liable for the Building Safety Levy (BSL), could mean that there are some authorities who collect little levy money as they do not have the quantum of sites over the proposed threshold.
The Government should allow for local flexibility on affordable housing contributions on minor development where it is evidenced and justified by local housing market conditions.
Streamlining Section 106 agreements
There is general agreement that more could and should be done to streamline and standardise elements of Section 106 agreements to help speed up the process of their drafting, and that this shouldn’t be limited to certain site sizes. Local authorities and the LGA want to work with the Government and the development sector to bring this forward urgently.
Other planning reforms
Overall, local authorities have reported that it is difficult to comment on the substance of these proposals without a wider understanding of future changes to the planning system, including National Development Management Policies (NDMPs) and a further review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Government must urgently come forward with these proposals to provide certainty to both local authorities and those within the development sector regarding how local plans will be developed and how decisions will be made.
As the Government continues to consider further how to streamline and speed up the planning process, the LGA and local authorities would welcome further engagement with Government to ensure that any proposals are proportionate and actionable for local planning authorities to deliver the housing and infrastructure their communities need.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor Adam Hug
Chair, Local Infrastructure and Net Zero Board
Local Government Association