GL Hearn Planning Briefing: changes to the current planning system

Ben Simpson, Planning Director, steps us through his take on the changes to the planning system proposed by government ahead of this week's deadline for consultation responses.

There has been much talk over recent weeks in response to government's planning reform consultation which was published in August. Tomorrow is the first milestone in the process, as we reach the deadline for submissions on changes to the current planning system.

Collectively, we have spent much time over the summer debating the proposed changes, and shaping solutions which could work. From meeting with clients to discuss the potential impact of changes to collaborating internally, we've focused on ensuring we shape our responses to the consultation based on our shared experience as a team and in collaboration with our clients.

We have brought together the broad range of planning and development experience we have across our team at GL Hearn, from economic planning, viability and masterplanning to affordable housing and development consulting, as well as our specialist technical expertise in areas such as sustainability, noise and air quality and infrastructure planning.

This first consultation is looking for responses to a variety of proposed changes, including:

• changes to the standard method for assessing local housing need
• securing of First Homes through developer contributions
• temporarily lifting the small sites threshold
• extending the current Permission in Principle to major development

We shall be submitting our responses tomorrow, and in the meantime I wanted to share some thoughts with you outlined below. Our full submission will be available via our website for this first deadline and later this month for the second deadline , which addresses the questions in the Planning for the Future White Paper published back in August.

Of course, it remains to be seen how fundamental these proposed changes will be in practice, and the success of any changes will rely on planners, developers, local authorities, occupiers and investors working closely to establish new ways of working in order to deliver the residential and commercial places for the future. Whatever the outcome, the opportunity to be part of this fundamental change undoubtedly remains an exciting one, and we are pleased to be able to contribute to the debate and share our experience, skills and expertise to shape  the future of planning.

Changes to the standard method
More needs to be done to deliver the homes that are needed up and down the country, especially in areas that are comparatively unaffordable. We accept that a minimum target for new housing is helpful in introducing stability into the standard method and ensuring local authorities are incentivised to draw in investment. How this is done must be grounded in economic reality, reflecting the different market conditions across the country. We make a number of detailed suggestions about  the revised Standard Method addressing these concerns in our final submission.

First Homes
Government's proposals could result in significant changes to how affordable housing is delivered and we acknowledge the benefits this could result in for certain parts of society in the housing market. We also recognise the need to ensure that other tenures within the affordable range are not squeezed out, leaving people without the option to secure the home that they need.

Small sites threshold
While we recognise that there are a variety of factors that inhibit SME developers from successfully pursuing schemes, we are concerned that the proposals to lift the threshold for affordable housing on small sites will lead to a further reduction in the delivery of much needed accommodation.  The barriers to SME activity are several and there are ways of lifting or removing many of them without needing to reduce affordable housing delivery.

Permission in Principle
We welcome the extension of the PiP mechanism. The PiP route has been narrowly drawn to-date and the proposals to extend it should help developers as well as local planning authorities to deliver development in a more efficient way. We recommend adjustments to the initial proposals in order to support government's broader push to achieve more beautiful development, and also underline the need for the PiP process to be more distinct from a standard outline application. This would help ensure the practical benefits of this approach can be understood by developers and the potential efficiencies realised by local planning authorities.

• Share