1 / 43

Delivering development: local plans and National Infrastructure

Delivering development: local plans and National Infrastructure. Mark Southgate, Director of Major Applications and Plans. Contents. PINS background Economic and Policy context Local Development Plans Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning Regime 2014 Review. Planning Inspectorate.

ermin
Download Presentation

Delivering development: local plans and National Infrastructure

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Delivering development: local plans and National Infrastructure • Mark Southgate, Director of Major Applications and Plans

  2. Contents • PINS background • Economic and Policy context • Local Development Plans • Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning Regime • 2014 Review

  3. Planning Inspectorate • Mission • “To deliver an outstanding national planning and appeals service which enjoys the confidence and respect of Ministers, the public and all stakeholders” • Values • Fairness, Openness and Impartiality

  4. Casework types • National Infrastructure applications • Development plans • Major applications – underperforming LPAs • Planning appeals • Enforcement appeals • Major casework: Secretary of State • Specialist casework – environment, transport, costs

  5. Planning appeals caseload 1999/00 – 2012/13 • * inc Householder Appeals Service cases

  6. Planning: all change please! • Planning Act 2008 • Localism Act 2011 • National Planning Policy Framework 2012 • Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 • National Planning Policy Guidance 2014 • Changes to permitted development rights

  7. Planning: the Business View • ‘Business has come to the view that the UK’s planning system is a blocker’ (CBI) • ‘The planning system is too complex, too costly and lacks consistency’ (BCC)

  8. Number of homes approved • Source: HBF Housing Pipeline Report

  9. NPPF • Plan led system • Duty to cooperate • Up to date plans • Positively prepared; boost significantly supply of housing • Meet objectively assessed needs, in full • 5 year housing land supply

  10. Plan progress – submitted for examination

  11. Duty to co-operate • Legal requirements (PCPA 2004, section 33A) has to be met during plan preparation • Potential show stopper since plan cannot be repaired after submission • Not a duty to agree, but co-operation in maximising effectiveness a much higher bar than consultation, information-sharing, meetings with other LPAs • Planning Policy Guidance gives helpful steer • Lessons from failures - eg North London Waste, Coventry, Hart, Kirklees, Aylesbury, Mid Sussex • High Court judgment on challenge to adoption of Winchester CS also helpful – duty satisfied

  12. NPPF key principles • “it is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place” paragraph 12 • “proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, businesses and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs” paragraph 17 • “Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system” paragraph 19

  13. Objectively assessed needs • “every effort should be made to objectively identify then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth” NPPF, paragraph 17 • Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) to assess full housing needs; meet household and population projections (taking account of migration) • Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) realistic assumptions about availability, suitability and likely viability of land to meet identified needs

  14. 5 year housing land supply • “To boost significantly the supply of housing, LPAs should: • Identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their local requirements … ” • +5% buffer to ensure choice and competition; and • +20% “where there has been a record of persistent under delivery” • paragraph 47

  15. Presumption in favour of sustainable development • “All plans should be based upon and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development” paragraph 15 • “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites” paragraph 49 • Deliverable = available now; in a suitable location; have a realistic prospect of delivery in 5 years; be viable

  16. Solihull judgement • GALLAGHER HOMES LIMITED & LIONCOURT HOMES LIMITED v SOLIHULL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL 30/04/14 • core strategy, examined and adopted post NPPF, cannot rely on housing figures in regional strategy • any plan coming forward post NPPF must have housing figures based on objectively assessed needs • implication that any plan that derives its housing numbers from RS figures may be vulnerable to legal challenge • LPAs should base their plans, inc. Site Allocations, on an up-to-date need figure, esp. given the removal of the hierarchy of plans

  17. Tips for successful plan making • Preparation is the key to success • Evidence-based plans • Use support available – PINS, PAS, planning guidance • Constructive, active, on-going engagement on strategic cross-boundary matters • Secure Member buy-in • Effective and challenging self assessment • Submit when LPA is satisfied the plan is sound and legally compliant

  18. The main objective!

  19. The political view • “An all-out mission to kick-start infrastructure projects and revive the economy” • (October 2011)

  20. A long and noble tradition

  21. The Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning Regime • Energy • Transport • Water Waste water Waste

  22. 2008 Act initial principles • One stop shop • Front loaded • Policy addresses need and principles • Development as applied for/Development Consent Order • Predominantly Written Representations • Clear and statutory timetable • Independent decision maker

  23. Overall energy policy Renewables Fossil fuels Electricity networks Oil and gas Nuclear Ports National networks Waste water Hazardous waste National Policy Statements

  24. Process – six steps

  25. The Planning Act 2008 • As amended by Localism Act 2011 • DEVELOPER • PINS • SofS • Decision • Pre-application • Acceptance • Examination • Pre-examination • Recommendation • 1 Year plus • Ca 1 Year • 3 months

  26. Regime evolution • Localism Act 2011 – abolished IPC; removed ‘merits bar’ • Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 – business or commercial • Light touch review of DCLG guidance • Consents Service Unit – April 2013 • 2014 NSIP regime review

  27. Time taken per stage

  28. Judicial Reviews • Heysham – Hearing 22-23 July 2013; Judgement 4 October 2013 - dismissed • Rookery South – Hearing 5-6 February; Judgement orally made – dismissed • Hinkley Point C – Hearing 5-6 December 2013; Judgement 20 December 2013 - dismissed; An Taisce appealed decision – granted 27 March • Preesall – Hearing 10-11 December 2013; Judgement 17 January 2014 - decision quashed March 2014

  29. Actual and projected casework • Now

  30. 2013/14 Submissions vs developer forecasts: cumulative

  31. System challenges • Different and novel process – technical and legal • Front loaded system - a lot of developer effort required • Up-front cost • Limited ability to change development once application accepted • Not all have National Policy Statement – NPPF, local plan • Discharge of requirements and post consent changes

  32. Avoiding the pitfalls • Genuine public engagement • Listen to, and act upon, results • Legal and technical advice – different regime • Succinct applications • Ensure application docs are consistent - eg DCO with ES • Narrow issues - evidence agreement and SoCG • Project Management

  33. Delivery - Ipswich Rail Chord

  34. Faster decisions - Hinkley Point C 31 Oct 2011 - application submitted 19 Dec 2012 - recommendation 19 Mar 2013 – Development Consent granted Sizewell B - 6 years to consent; inquiry 3 years!

  35. In progress - Thames Tideway Tunnel • Submitted 28 February 2013 • Accepted 27 March • 25.1km long; 7m diameter • Max 66m underground • 50,000 Pages • Over 1000 Plans • 18,000 land • interests

  36. Further change • Improved pre app offer • Post consent changes Local authority and community engagement

More Related