A lot more of this?
If you are not a “planophobe”, better switch off now – but don’t press the delete button too soon because a mass of housing could be coming to a Waverley town or village soon.
Yesterday was a BIG day for the planning world—one of the biggest for many years. Change is coming. We have a lot to cover, and it will take months of blog posts.
But just for today, to set the ball rolling, pay attention, and we can touch on the big things. Just the biggies. Right. Sitting comfortably? Off we go:
Let’s start with some hyperlinks. On Tuesday, Deputy PM Angela Rayner MP made a statement to the House of Commons, which can be watched here, introducing a new consultation on national planning policy.
-
Here’s a written ministerial statement that covers (and expands on) what the Secretary of State said in the chamber. Read that, not least because it can be a material consideration in planning decisions right now—see the Cala Homes case from 2011.
- A press release and a news story from the Ministry are here.
-
However, there is not much time! The consultation runs from now until 24 September 2024. This seems ambitious, given that there will probably be tens of thousands of consultation responses to review. Still, the government says they’ll publish it “before the end of the year.” Some of the issues are BIG! Really BIG—so who’s having a summer holiday?
A link to the responding web page is here. Go for it
-
A tracked changes version of the new NPPF is here.
-
Consultation text will explain the changes and point toward further changes here.
- A ” long-term plan for housing” will include an “affordable housing revolution”—no details yet. (For example, look for right-to-buy reforms and funding promises in the next spending review.)
-
Outcomes of how the new revised method for calculating local housing needs would change targets in every local planning authority here.
-
A letter to planning authorities, including ‘Your Waverley’ from Angela Rayner, summarises what’s coming here.
our goal has to be for universal coverage of ambitious local plans as quickly as possible.
Thankfully, Waverley’s Local Plan has been under revision for over a year. The present administration was determined not to make the previous administration’s mistakes of leaving itself exposed for so long without a Local Plan!
The Tory Group wanted the LP to be given “a light touch,” which would have proved fatal under the Angela regime.
Many planning authorities decided to reduce their housing targets after Conservative Housing ministers’ various planning statements last year. This was a big mistake. Labour was making its intentions very clear on this, so Waverley was absolutely right to push on with starting the process of revising the local plan and anticipating a significant increase in the housing target.
This is an important statement from the MS.
Planning is principally a local activity, and it is right that decisions about what to build and where should reflect local views. But we are also clear that these decisions should be about how to deliver the housing an area needs, not whether to do so at all, and these needs cannot be met without identifying enough land through local plans.
Green Belt:
if planning authorities can’t meet their needs e.g. for housing without using Green Belt land, the new NPPF will require them to review those boundaries and propose alterations to meet local housing needs in full unless
“the review provides clear evidence that such alterations would fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole”.
“instances where an authority cannot meet its identified need for housing, commercial or other development through other means”.
We’re dooooooooomed!
First of all, well done Waverley Web for such a comprehensive blog on what’s been happening this week with regard to Local Authorities (LPAs) Now that the Government is not financially beholden to house builders, it’s time for the big stick to be brought out. Hopefully, some legislation will come forward to penalise developers who don’t build out their permissions within a set period.
More homes will need to be built in Waverley. It’s not a case of if, but how many. The key to much of this will be a statement contained in Aunty Angela’s letter:
“We know that large parts of the Green Belt have little ecological value and are inaccessible to the public, and that the development that happens under the existing framework can be haphazard – too often lacking the
affordable homes and wider infrastructure that communities need”
So Waverley best get on with identifying these areas and including them in the Local Plan update.
We do our best – though recognising that our best is not always enough.
Like you, we sincerely hope that legislation will be forthcoming on all those developers who have bagged their planning consents but have been tardy in fulfilling their obligation to build out. Trinity College Cambridge – Shame on you and all those other developers that have tucked permissions under their belts and allowed other greenfield sites to become vulnerable. Or, will they be laughing all the way to the bank when they increase the numbers?
Not all who buy land are developers they could be a “site promotor”, whilst a hectare of agricultural land is valued in thousands with planning permission it is valued in millions. This leap in land value makes it difficult to build affordable dwellings. Planning permission for the Coxbridge Development in Farnham was granted to a site promotor unless the information available to the public has been misinterpreted. If WW provides an email address it is welcome to the information transparency is democratic necessity.
We can always be contacted at contact@waverleyweb.org and welcome private e-mails.
Just on the vexed question of building out permissions. I’m rather torn on this because a big chunk of the post consent delay relates to discharging the conditions imposed when planning is given. Some of these are really important and can make a lot of difference to the quality/sustainability of the development. So I fear that putting time pressure on condition discharge could backfire….just as it did when WBC came under time pressure to discharge some of the highways conditions relating to Milford Golf Course and have ended up with a total mess on the construction access, amongst other things.
Labour like the Conservatives are forgetting that climate change will bring a much drier English climate. Before Labour builds more dwellings than the Victorian infrastructure can accommodate, they must ensure water security and build more reservoirs. Ms Rayner should also consider that rivers are critical emergency water supplies dumping sewage in them frustrates this critical contingency arrangement.
Suffice it to say, they will not make of the necessary improvements to our crumbling infrastructure first.
I too would like to see some information on what areas of the Exisiting GreenBelt are not infact GREEN at all, I understand there are car parks and other areas of GREYBELT that could be used, but there are certain parts of the Borough who have consistantly hung on to them in the fear that once you start to build on “greenbelt” then it could go further..and I am afraid to say they have continued to prefer building on GREENFIELDS in areas Not constrained by Greenbelt
As for the Developers Bagging up their Planning permissions, they should pay a form of Reduced Council Tax based on the Number of Proposed Houses, until such time as those houses are completed… It surely wouldn’t be a difficult exercise to put into place and may give this wretched Developer-Led Planning system a kick up the nethers.
How about this. A developer/promoter has to bring forward to the local planning authority the site it has in mind before it makes the purchase. the local authority then specifies the number size and retail value of the houses it will allow together with infrastructure requirements. The developer/promoter can then work out the value of the land it is able to pay and cannot later claim that it cannot build what the community needs as the land cost more than would be economic. So many problems seem to stem from the original speculative high price paid for the land.
The developers would say that this is what you would expect in a totalitarian country but they have so abused the existing system that it is time for a change (as we have been told ad infinitum over the last couple of months).
Change is just around the corner.