LGA submission to MHCLG’s consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system

The LGA is the national voice of local government. We are a politically led, cross party membership organisation, representing councils from England and Wales. 

Our role is to support, promote and improve local government, and raise national awareness of the work of councils. Our ultimate ambition is to support councils to deliver local solutions to national problems.

• We clearly recognise the need to strengthen and increase housebuilding across the country and believe that all local authorities have their part to play. To do that local authorities need the right powers, skills, resources, and funding to take action. There is a strong appetite across the sector to work constructively to improve local plan coverage and housebuilding outcomes, including the significant need to deliver more homes for social rent and homes which are genuinely affordable. 
   
• Planning is about creating communities linked with the right economic activity and public services, whilst conserving and enhancing the natural and local environment. Critically, local authorities must be empowered to take their residents along with them on this journey to develop and build more homes. That is because it is not just homes that are required to create thriving, attractive and desirable places and communities in which to live but the accompanying local and national infrastructure, to be developed both now and phased at early and timely stages alongside the development of new homes, which is of primary concern for residents. 
   
• People cannot and do not live in planning permissions. The Government must take urgent action and work with the development and housebuilding industry to ensure there is a suitable pipeline of sustainable sites, which once allocated in a Local Plan and / or given planning permission, are indeed built out. Local authorities must be given greater powers to ensure prompt build out of sites with planning permission. Local authorities deliver permissions, developers deliver homes. Unless there is a fundamental shift in local authorities’ abilities or expectation to deliver homes, they should not be subject to punitive measures which undermine the plan-led system including the 5-year housing land supply test and the Housing Delivery Test. 
   
• It should be ensured that constituent local authorities, and local communities, have a meaningful voice and role within regional approaches to spatial planning which should be led at a local or locally-agreed appropriate level. Local authorities should always be given the flexibility to influence the geography that is most appropriate for local needs, as opposed to a burdensome central directive.
   
• We concede that it is a difficult task to determine the housebuilding targets for each local authority area, however any housebuilding target derived by a formula which does not account for local circumstances or the practicalities of delivery in that particular location is likely doomed to fail. Issues such as land value and viability, land availability for competing uses such as employment and green space (in particular in built-up areas), water and nutrient neutrality, and geographically limiting factors such as coastal areas or those surrounded by 'hard constraints' all contribute to the genuine feasibility of authorities being able to adequately plan for these ambitious new figures.
   
• We welcome the Government’s narrative shift towards empowering local authorities to deliver more homes for social rent, however this must be backed by practical measures both within and outside the realms of planning policy. 
   
  
  • The roll out of five-year local housing deals by 2025 to all areas of the country that want them – combining funding from multiple national housing programmes into a single pot. This will provide certainty and efficiencies and could support delivery of an additional 200,000 social homes in a 30-year period.
     
  • Giving councils the powers and flexibilities to use the Right to Buy scheme and receipts in their local area will help protect existing valuable social stock and allow councils to invest in the direct delivery of new stock or acquisitions.
     
  • The Affordable Homes Programme (AHP) grant levels per unit must be reviewed and increased to deliver more new affordable homes and ensure inflationary pressures do not jeopardise continued delivery.
     
  • Housing Revenue Accounts must be strengthened via a long-term rent settlement of at least 10 years alongside restoration of lost revenue due to rent cap/cuts, to give councils certainty on rental income and support long-term business planning.
     
  • Further investment should be made in the Brownfield Land Release Fund and One Public Estate programmes, with the opportunity for speedy release of public land and housebuilding on smaller council, health and blue light sites.
     
  • Further opportunities should be brought forward to utilise compulsory purchase powers (CPOs) to facilitate land assembly and expedite the delivery of approved regeneration schemes, as well as providing the necessary resources to facilitate a higher pace and volume of CPOs.
     
  • Increase flexibility for local authorities in the use of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding to enable it to be invested directly in the delivery of affordable housing (rather than only be applicable to enabling works as at present).
     
• There is also no place in the current or future planning system for unfettered permitted development (PD) rights, in particular those which permit the creation of new homes without contributions towards affordable housing and requirements to ensure the new housing is high-quality. These rights represent a deregulated approach to development which undermines the Government’s own and local authorities planning policies and place-making ambitions, both in urban and rural settings. Only a locally-led planning system in which councils and the communities they represent have a say over the way places develop will ensure the delivery of high-quality affordable homes with the necessary infrastructure to create sustainable, resilient places for current and future generations. 
   
• The LGA continue to advocate for proportionate regulation and oversight relating to short-term lets that allows local discretion and implementation.
   
• The NPPF must be stronger on promoting sustainable and resilient place-making. Within a clear set of expectations set by a national framework, local planning authorities are best placed to make decisions about ways in which to address climate change mitigation and adaptation in their local areas, and therefore the NPPF should be suitably flexible to accommodate this. The Government should also urgently bring forward a more ambitious Future Homes and Buildings Standard as soon as is practically possible, to reduce the future costs and disruption of building homes today that we know are not ready for tomorrow.
   
• Allowing local authorities to set their own planning application fees is hugely welcomed and will help to address growing and real concerns that planning departments are facing regarding resourcing and capacity constraints. The flexibility to set planning fees, alongside other measures such as increasing the number of planners, will slowly help to address the national operating shortfall in planning departments and provide better value for money from local authorities for the taxpayer. We entirely support Model 2 – Local Variation (from default national fee). 
   
• We do not agree that the trigger for transitional arrangements should be a blanket, arbitrary figure or gap of 200 dwellings or more between the local authority’s revised Local Housing Need (LHN) figure derived by the proposed new Standard Methodology and the figure set out in the adopted / proposed plan. A more appropriate and proportionate approach would be to set a percentage difference. The transitional arrangements are complex and we urge the Government to undertake an assessment of all Local Development Schemes to fully consider the number of plans that fall into each of the transitional arrangements and what appropriate measures need to be put in place to support these authorities. This could include ensuring the Planning Inspectorate are adequately prepared and resourced for changes to timetables for submissions for examination in certain time periods. 

Question 1: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made to paragraph 61?

No, we do not agree. In March 2023, the LGA supported the decision to make housebuilding targets an advisory starting point, giving councils flexibility to take account of local circumstances when determining their housebuilding targets to ensure that development in their area reflects local priorities. This was because the algorithms and formulas used to produce the Standard Method outputs can never be a substitute for local knowledge of an area and decision-making by local authorities and communities who know their areas best.

Reversing the December 2023 changes to the NPPF and making the housebuilding target a mandatory starting point is a centralising policy which removes local decision-making powers and flexibilities over how to objectively develop an area over time.  

We are, however, supportive of the Government’s intentions to retain the existing ‘hard’ constraints that would justify a lower housing requirement than the figure the proposed new Standard Method sets, including Green Belt (notwithstanding proposed changes in this consultation), Local Green Space, National Landscapes, National Parks, designated heritage assets and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.

However, we clearly recognise the need to strengthen and increase housebuilding across the country and believe that all local authorities have their part to play - there is an appetite across the sector to work constructively to improve housebuilding outcomes and local plan coverage. 

If mandatory targets are to be introduced it is important that there is a nuanced and pragmatic approach to target setting which goes beyond a simple formula to recognise local challenges, including requirements to help deliver other national missions including economic growth and clean energy, as well as other priorities recognised by the Government such as supporting biodiversity. 

Secondly in order both to succeed and to ensure a fair and productive partnership between local and national government, local authorities will need to be given the tools to help deliver. This not only relates to delivering the necessary reforms in the NPPF but addressing other fundamental limitations on housebuilding including:

• empowering authorities to address slow or lack of build-out of permitted sites
   
• capital funding to support affordable house building
   
• land supply for housing by public bodies
   
• tackling the skills and workforce shortages that inhibit construction
   
• ensuring that housing stock (both existing and future) is used to provide dwelling homes for people through action on empty homes, regulation of short-term lettings and second homes and initiatives to address wasted supply. 

Significant pressures on Housing Revenue Accounts are restricting  local authorities’ ability to invest in new supply or regeneration of existing sites owing to the cumulative financial burdens of new regulatory regimes, coupled with frozen and stagnating rents.

Question 2: Do you agree that we should remove reference to the use of alternative approaches to assessing housing need in paragraph 61 and the glossary of the NPPF?

No, we do not agree. The algorithms and formulas used to obtain the housebuilding targets in both the existing and proposed new standard method can never be a substitute for local knowledge and decision-making by local authorities and communities who know their areas best. National planning policy should remain suitably flexible to allow authorities, where appropriate, to make judgement decisions on approaches to assessing housing need their local areas (in particular given our concerns to the proposals in Chapter 4). Such decisions must be appropriately evidenced through the development of the local plan and therefore also ratified by the Planning Inspectorate through a plan’s examination. 

Question 3: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on the urban uplift by deleting paragraph 62?

Yes – the LGA did not support the introduction of the 35 per cent uplift in housebuilding targets for the 20 largest towns and cities on the basis that it was an arbitrary figure, with no empirical evidence to support the percentage uplift, and should like to see this reversed by deleting paragraph 62 of the NPPF. 

We do however recognise that development in urban locations typically promotes more sustainable transport options and has a greater baseline of infrastructure available to residents than more rural areas.

All local authorities have their part to play bringing forward the homes needed to support our communities, yet to enable more housebuilding in more urban and sustainable locations, in particular on brownfield sites, we urge the Government to review our response to Question 20 which identifies the most common challenges and some potential solutions.

Question 4: Do you agree that we should reverse the December 2023 changes made on character and density and delete paragraph 130?

No - reversing the December 2023 changes to the NPPF, which would allow local authorities to justify meeting a lower housebuilding target and building at lower densities if not doing so would be wholly out of character with an area, is a centralising policy which removes local decision-making powers and flexibilities over how to objectively develop an area over time. The role of plan-making is to not only proactively plan for the growth of housing, employment and infrastructure uses but to ensure that new developments complement and enhance the existing area in which they are to be developed. 

Question 5: Do you agree that the focus of design codes should move towards supporting spatial visions in local plans and areas that provide the greatest opportunities for change such as greater density, in particular the development of large new communities?

Yes – the current scope for design codes, in particular authority-wide design codes, is too broad and burdensome for authorities to produce and we agree that the focus of design codes should move towards supporting spatial visions. 

However, national policy should be suitably flexible to ensure local authorities are not limited in their choices of how and where to apply design codes. 

Question 6: Do you agree that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be amended as proposed?

The changes proposed to the presumption in favour of sustainable development (NPPF paragraph 11) are flawed despite their intentions.

Our member authorities tell us the speculative schemes which come forward when the tilted balance is in play are often of poor quality and do not contribute to the local housing need of the area. Further, the unplanned nature of these schemes means that no holistic oversight of infrastructure requirements can be undertaken to support the homes and residents that will reside in them. This often leads to reductions in community trust and engagement with the local planning process, as well as reduced support for the development themselves. These developments, and the titled balance in itself, undermines the plan-led system which the Government, and local authorities, are committed to achieve. 

The changes proposed to paragraph 11d are laudable; ensuring that developers cannot use the presumption, when engaged, to promote low quality, unsustainable development by introducing explicit references to the need to consider locational and design policies, and affordable housing. However, the proposed changes are flawed as they do not go far enough to remove viability as a material planning consideration. 

Viability pressures remain one of the greatest challenges for local authorities trying to bring forward affordable and social homes as well as meeting local planning policy requirements. We welcomed the amendments made by Government in the Planning Practice Guidance for viability in 2019 which stated that the “cost of fully complying with policy requirements should be accounted for in benchmark land value” and that “under no circumstances will the price paid for land be relevant justification for failing to accord with relevant policies in the plan”. However, local authorities continue to report that the planning system is still being undermined by the use of viability arguments from developers to avoid the need to meet local plan policy requirements including the provision of affordable and social housing and providing infrastructure contributions.

We would like to see further amendments made to the viability system – for example, removing the requirement to factor in an assumed developer or landowner return or removal of viability assessments as a material planning consideration entirely. Further, we would urge the Government to urgently review the 2019 amendments to the PPG for viability and assess whether they have achieved their intended objectives. 

It will be important to ensure that if the rolling five-year housing land supply test (see our response to Question 7) is re-introduced, in combination with new and significantly increased mandatory housing targets, that it does not result in a significant and marked rise in the number of unplanned and speculative developments in those areas with an out-of-date Local Plan. The ambition to deliver more homes must be measured to ensure that homes are high-quality, in sustainable locations, and supported by the accompanying required local and national infrastructure our communities need. 

Question 7: Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to continually demonstrate 5 years of specific, deliverable sites for decision making purposes, regardless of plan status?

No, we do not agree that local planning authorities should be required to continually demonstrate 5 years of specific deliverable sites for decision-making. In particular, we do not agree that this must occur for those local authorities with an up to date (5 years or less) adopted plan.  

The process of accurately updating records to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply is a resource-intensive activity that impacts on capacity to progress plan-making. Existing practice recognises that where such a supply has been successfully demonstrated through a local plan examination, it will have been subject to significant scrutiny and can and should therefore be relied on for the 5 years since the plan was adopted. 

Furthermore, existing requirements to report on housing delivery in Authority Monitoring Reports is sufficient in ensuring transparency when reporting on the level of existing permissions and the extent to which they have been implemented.

For those local authorities without an up-to-date Local Plan, or whose plans may become out of date soon, the very real risk of the presumption in favour for sustainable development, in combination with new and significantly increased mandatory housing targets, will undoubtedly result in a significant and marked rise in the number of unplanned and speculative developments. The ambition to deliver more homes must be measured to ensure that homes are high-quality, in sustainable locations, and supported by the accompanying required local and national infrastructure our communities need. 

As such, more appropriate transitional arrangements should be put in place to prevent an “overnight” flip to speculative development. Given the average time taken to prepare Local Plans, we could be entering a phase of ad hoc poor quality housing developments determined at appeal, which may entirely erode local trust in the planning system whilst simultaneously draining the already limited resources within planning departments. 

This is not to down-play the role local authorities want, and are ready, to play in delivering the homes we need, but the national approach must be more practical and not undermine local leaders and communities.

Finally, we would urge the Government to give consideration as to what is meant by “deliverable” should the 5-year housing land supply test be re-introduced.

Question 8: Do you agree with our proposal to remove wording on national planning guidance in paragraph 77 of the current NPPF?

The proposals in the consultation are unclear – the Government must clarify if the proposals intend to remove the ability to consider past oversupply, or simply to signpost authorities to use the Planning Practice Guidance. 

We believe that planning practice guidance can provide useful and detailed guidance to supplement the NPPF on detailed matters such as how housing supply data should be calculated and offers scope to be easily updated as necessary. We recognise the need for even successful house building authorities to continue to play their part in housing delivery, however the removal of wording on past oversupply, introduced to set out that previous oversupply could be set against upcoming supply without reference to land availability or other practical constraints that may have been impacted by previous delivery, needs further thought. 

We support an approach which takes into consideration the historic oversupply of housing in early years of plan periods when calculating the proposed re-introduction of the 5-year housing land supply test. This better reflects the nature of development in local areas, for example large numbers of units in flatted developments tend to ‘be delivered’ at the same time rather than phased, whilst large sites can take many years of planning lead in time. The approach also ensures that proactive local authorities seeking to deliver higher numbers of housing in their local areas are not subject to punitive measures (the tilted balance) later in their plan period.

Question 9: Do you agree that all local planning authorities should be required to add a 5 per cent buffer to their 5-year housing land supply calculations?

No – whilst in practice it may be sensible to apply a buffer to reflect the dynamic nature of the housing and development market, in this case and in combination with significantly increased mandatory housing targets, the buffer simply acts as an increase in the figure against which local authorities will be held to account for the supply of land for new homes. This will only serve to continue to undermine a plan-led system in areas of the country without an up-to-date Local Plan.  

Question 10: If yes, do you agree that 5 per cent is an appropriate buffer, or should it be a different figure?

We do not agree with the use of a 5 per cent buffer on five-year housing land supply calculations. 

However, particularly in the event the 5 per cent buffer is introduced, retaining the additional 20 per cent buffer where there has been significant under-delivery over the previous 3 years (as set out in NPPF paragraph 76b) is considered excessive.

The LGA have long raised our concerns about how the Housing Delivery Test penalises local authorities and communities for non-delivery of permitted homes, which is out of their control, when they have few levers to incentivise the build-out of sites by developers once sites have been allocated and granted permission. Authorities should be given powers to charge full council tax for every unbuilt development from the point the original planning permission expires. It should also be made easier for councils to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire stalled housing sites or sites where developers do not build out to timescales contractually agreed with a local planning authority. Other “use it or lose it” reforms could include raising the threshold for considering pre-commencement conditions to have been discharged. We also urge the Government to work with the sector to redefine what is meant by “start” on site to ensure it results in meaningful efforts to commence construction.

Further, development cycles can fluctuate significantly over a short-term period as a result of wider global economic factors and investment confidence – for example, much of the recent slowdown in build out of permissions can be attributed to the impact of Covid-19 and Brexit.

If a buffer for under-delivery is maintained, it is suggested this should be set significantly lower than the current 20 per cent, and relate to a 5 year time period to better align with requirements to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

Question 11: Do you agree with the removal of policy on Annual Position Statements?

Yes – we agree with the removal of policy on Annual Position Statements. 

Question 12: Do you agree that the NPPF should be amended to further support effective co-operation on cross boundary and strategic planning matters?

As outlined in the LGA’s Local Government White Paper, Government should enable councils to deliver on inclusive growth via meaningful devolution, recognising the valuable role of local authorities in shaping places. The devolution of Spatial Development Strategies (SDSs) recognises that local authorities are best placed to work collaboratively together and tackle cross-boundary challenges such as housebuilding, delivering infrastructure and climate resilience. 

The LGA welcomes the commitment to achieve universal coverage of strategic planning in England but would strongly encourage the Government to empower local authorities to take the ownership of the form in which it takes, enabling those who want to work together to develop strategic plans.

We have long argued that it is important that those areas that are unlikely to support a mayoral combined authority (MCA) or who do not currently possess an MCA should not be consigned to the devolution 'slow lane'.

There are certainly positives in the Government’s ambition to implement regional strategic planning. If done well, this provides the opportunity to galvanise community partners, businesses and residents towards a shared agenda. Further, consistency in the powers available across MCAs on spatial planning is welcome, as this is currently very varied. 

Requiring local leaders to develop SDS’ is a resource-intensive and time-consuming exercise. It is imperative that this new requirement on authorities is accompanied by measures to ensure local government is sufficiently resourced to deliver this new burden – both in terms of finances and sufficiently skilled and experienced planners/staff to undertake the work. Overall, there is a significant challenge in resourcing local planning authority teams and retaining staff with necessary specific skills. We note the Government has started to take action to increase number of planners in the public sector through the Pathways to Planning scheme, Public Practice and the announcement of a further 300 planners in local authorities as part of the new Government’s manifesto. However we must continue to highlight that these schemes will not automatically decrease the number of vacancies for staff with specific skills across the country, nor will it solve historic issues of staff retention.

Our key observation is that it should be ensured that constituent local authorities, and local communities, have a meaningful voice and role within regional approaches to spatial planning which should be led at a local or locally agreed appropriate level. 

One such lesson is the need for consistency in policy from Government. Places for Everyone (page 132) utilised the accepted methodology within the previous NPPF to calculate allocations for the nine districts. However, the proposed reintroduction of mandatory housing targets, compiled under a new formula, will set levels well above those contained in Places for Everyone. Given the extended period of time taken to deliver the Greater Manchester spatial framework, should the Government roll this model out more widely, it will be critical that areas have the consistency required in policy in order to effectively plan for the future. 

The recognition that “we will need to consider both the appropriate geographies to use to cover functional economic areas, and the right democratic mechanisms for securing agreement” is also valuable. As we have already set out, the LGA recognises the value of planning on a coherent local basis, and we would welcome further clarity on the Government’s meaning and understanding of functional economic areas across England and Wales. Local authorities should always be given the flexibility to influence the geography that is most appropriate for local needs, as opposed to a burdensome central directive. 

Furthermore, we would welcome further information on how SDSs will be administered in non-mayoral combined authority areas. The creation of such a strategy should be collaborative in nature, locally-led and with a governance arrangement which allows all participant local authorities to input a verdict on decision making. 

We would seek clarity on the Government’s intention for those areas that agreed a devolution deal prior to the most recent General Election without the passage of the required statutory instrument. 

Furthermore, we are interested in how the roll out of strategic planning will align with the Government’s intention to progress with devolution in areas currently without a settlement. Whilst the LGA recognises the need for local areas to determine the geography that works best for local circumstances, we would advocate for contiguous arrangements between different schemes where possible.

Local authorities are currently being asked to produce a range of spatial land strategies (Local Nature Recovery Strategies, Local Energy Plans, Local Plans etc). Even Local Growth Plans will require an element of spatial thinking. These plans are unlikely to naturally align as requirements for renewable energy, housing and environmental protection amongst others come into contact. It will require local joined-up action to best manage the increasing demands on finite land. Local government is best placed to oversee local coordination and we would welcome the chance to discuss this with Government.

The LGA is keen to work with Government on its intent ‘to identify priority groupings of other authorities where strategic planning – and in particular the sharing of housing need requirements – would provide particular benefits.’ Local authorities already display the benefit of planning on a cross-boundary nature, including in the development of housing. Where joint working can be demonstrated, it would be logical to prioritise the roll-out of strategic planning including the joint exercise of housing need requirements.

Finally – we would urge Government to prioritise this area of policy, and the accompanying legislative programme, to bring about detailed guidance and engagement with local authorities as quickly as practical to ensure no delays in the plan-making process. 

Question 13: Should the tests of soundness be amended to better assess the soundness of strategic scale plans or proposals?

Yes – the tests of soundness for a Local Plan will be different to those at a strategic level, as acknowledged in the consultation. Deliverability and viability at this strategic level is not a reliable test, and yet environmental impact is possibly more relevant. 

We recommend the Government review the RTPI’s recent publication Strategic Planning in England.

Question 14: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

The Government must give urgent clarity to the sector on whether or not the number of homes identified and brought forward through the work of the New Towns Task Force will factor into the new mandatory housing targets. We argue that they should. 

Local authorities greatly support neighbourhood plans. Clarity is required on the future role of these plans both with regard to the proposed new housebuilding targets but the Government’s future approach to this valued and productive level of planning which directly engages communities and encourages locally supported growth. 

Finally, we wish to reiterate the very real concerns shared by local authorities about the punitive and disenfranchising implications that mandatory housing targets, the re-introduction of the 5-year housing land supply test, and the Housing Delivery Test will have with regards to plan-making.

Question 15: Do you agree that the Planning Practice Guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is housing stock rather than the latest household projections?

The existing approach to the Standard Method is not perfect – in fact we have highlighted previously that reliance on past trends to drive projected future need is not an appropriate methodology. The ONS projections used are those from 2014 and vastly out of date – so it is noted that the proposed new baseline would serve to provide stability and certainty. 

However, the proposed new baseline for the standard method, existing housing stock, rather than the latest household projections is flawed as it does not consider demographic factors, local housing tenures and types or household formation rates which would determine an actual need for housing. The stock-based approach sits at odds with many other local plan evidence base studies which use population growth to quantify need, such as economic strategies and school place planning. 

Consideration will need to be given to those urban authorities, with tightly drawn administrative boundaries, intense competition from other land uses (particularly Use Class E) and large numbers of existing dwelling stock, as to how the duty to cooperate and cross-border coordination and engagement will work in practice. Local authorities are already working hard to maximise and optimise densities in all areas, including brownfield and built-up areas. 

In more rural authorities, the existence of a baseline number of homes does not equate on a practical level to the ability to deliver more homes to that scale without due consideration for local geographic circumstances. For example, consideration will need to be had to those areas with large amounts of second or vacant homes which will have a compounding impact using a stock-based approach to housing numbers. 

Planning is about creating communities linked with the right economic activity and public services, whilst conserving and enhancing the natural and local environment. Critically, local authorities must be empowered to take their residents along with them on this journey to develop and build more homes. That is because it is not just homes that are required to create thriving, attractive and desirable places and communities in which to live but the accompanying local and national infrastructure, to be developed both now and phased at early and timely stages alongside the development of new homes, which is of primary concern for residents. 

We concede that it is a difficult task to determine the housebuilding targets for each local authority area, however any housebuilding target derived by a formula which does not account for local circumstances or the practicalities of delivery in that particular location is likely doomed to fail. Issues such as land value and viability, land availability for competing uses such as employment and green space (in particular in built-up areas), water and nutrient neutrality, and geographically limiting factors such as coastal areas or those surrounded by “hard constraints” all contribute to the genuine feasibility of authorities being able to adequately plan for these ambitious figures. 

There should be national guidance that makes clear that local planning authorities can use their own clear and justified methodology, regardless of whether that results in a local housing need figure which is higher or lower than that given by the proposed revised standard method.

Question 16: Do you agree that using the workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio, averaged over the most recent 3 year period for which data is available to adjust the standard method’s baseline, is appropriate?

No – using workplace-based, or in fact resident-based, will have different implications in different local authorities. Workplace-based distorts the actual need in particular for areas with high levels of out-commuting and low-wage level jobs. 

We believe that there should be national guidance that makes clear that local planning authorities can use their own clear and justified methodology, regardless of whether that results in a local housing need figure which is higher or lower than that given by the proposed revised standard method. 

This could include for example using residence-based earnings rather than workplace-based earnings. The house price to workplace earnings ratio is assessing whether people can afford to live where they work. In a relatively low wage area with high house prices, because people can commute to a higher wage area, the workplace-based ratio will be higher than the residence based ratio. As an example, the ONS state that “there are relatively higher affordability ratios in the surrounding areas of London when the workplace-based earnings are used”. In this example, for those residents reliant on local jobs, that might be less well paid on average, it isn’t just about building more homes, it is about providing a mix of homes including genuinely affordable homes for purchase and homes for affordable and social rent. Using the proposed methodology on workplace-based earning would in this case distort the actual need.

Question 17: Do you agree that affordability is given an appropriate weighting within the proposed standard method?

Whilst we agree that the worsening affordability of homes is evidence that supply is failing to keep up with the demand for homes, it is too simplistic to suggest that the housing market operates on pure supply and demand dynamics. The construction of new homes does not automatically reduce the cost of others - affordability (either to own or rent property) is far more complex and linked to many non-exhaustive factors including macro-economic trends, local wages, inflation, and construction costs. 

In addition, having the right tenure mix to meet the needs of local communities is vitally important. It is our view that assessment of local housing need, including overall numbers and tenure mix, should be determined locally based on the relevant up to date evidence, because what might be the optimum tenure mix in one place, will not be in another. 

The impact of the affordability adjustment on the housebuilding target outputs from the Standard Method is significant, with many areas now facing significantly higher numbers not only from previous methodology outputs but also in relation to actual delivery of homes. 

Consideration should be given by Government to how affordability is approached on a ‘broader than local’ scale, as it is not driven or contained by action within one local authority’s boundary. One authority’s ability to meet its housing target does not mean that overall affordability in the area will improve. 

Furthermore, absent reforms to ensure new build dwellings are brought into use as homes (rather than used, for example, as short-term lets or passive investments) will not automatically feed through to greater affordability in either the sale price or rents. 

Question 18: Do you consider the standard method should factor in evidence on rental affordability? If so, do you have any suggestions for how this could be incorporated into the model?

In principle we would support this, however there is a need for more detailed guidance and / or understanding of how the standard method would factor in evidence on rental affordability, ensuring it reflects local markets. 

The rental market is an important component of the housing market, increasingly so as the gap between earnings and average property values increases and a wider cross section of society rely on it as they cannot afford to buy a property that meets their needs, or in fact choose to not buy a property. The private rented sector is also more vulnerable to the impacts of properties being lost to short-term lets, which further inflates rental affordability, particularly in tourist hot spots. We continue to call for proportionate regulation and oversight relating to short-term lets that allows local discretion and implementation.

Costs in the private rented sector are growing rapidly and this is having untold impacts on households and families as well as placing significant strain on public services and the need for temporary accommodation through increases in the use of Section 21 eviction notices. The number of no-fault evictions increased by 23 per cent in the year between December 2022 and 2023 and the percentage of local authorities total housing budget being spent on homelessness and temporary accommodation has more than tripled since 2015. The Government should carefully monitor the private rented sector and rent costs as the Renter’s Rights Bill goes through passage in Parliament. 

Question 19: Do you have any additional comments on the proposed method for assessing housing need?

For practical implementation and to assist all local planning authorities with a duty to undertake plan-making, the proposed standard method outputs should be disaggregated to identify all local planning authorities including National Park Authorities and Development Corporations.

Separately, we have been informed anecdotally that some Local Plans currently going through examination are being asked to consider the implications of the outputs of the proposed new standard method. As this proposed methodology is a consultation proposal, it should play no part in the examination of plans until such a time as an outcome is determined. 

Local authorities stand ready to help deliver the new, genuinely affordable and social homes needed for communities and places to thrive. These homes must be high-quality, sustainable and an appropriate size, type and tenure to meet local housing need. The proposed method for determining housebuilding targets, as well as the proposals to make these targets mandatory, does not give local authorities a suitable or appropriate baseline or flexibility to deliver on this. We again reiterate the very real concerns shared by local authorities about the punitive and disenfranchising implications mandatory housing targets, the re-introduction of the 5-year housing land supply test, and the Housing Delivery Test will have with regards to plan-making.

Question 20: Do you agree that we should make the proposed change set out in paragraph 124c, as a first step towards brownfield passports?

Local authorities already seek to prioritise and optimise brownfield sites and so we agree with the proposed changes to the NPPF which would make clear that the principle of development is positive. 

However, there are many challenges to the development of brownfield land, and the planning system is not the key barrier. Local authorities grant nine in 10 planning applications. The planning system and local authorities, with democratically elected members making decisions for their communities and Local Plans in place to deliver on local priorities, act as stewards of their localities – ensuring that any brownfield development that comes forward is high quality and thoroughly considered. 

Some of the challenges to brownfield development include complexity of land ownership and assembly, remediation of land to make it habitable/suitable for re-use and the subsequent viability of delivering schemes, access to the site, parking and highways, capacity levels of local infrastructure, flood risk, and biodiversity. Abandoned or brownfield land can be a haven for many species as the nutrient poor soils, exposed and broken-down structures and lack of human intervention allow species to thrive. Whilst this is positive for our natural environment, when brownfield land is sought to be re-used, the cost of implementing the recently introduced Biodiversity Net Gain tool (which aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was beforehand by requiring a minimum of 10 per cent gain in biodiversity) can be considerable and threaten the deliverability of a scheme. 

We urge the Government to acknowledge that land being previously developed does not necessarily equate it to being in a suitable location for housing – for example, numerous new homes were delivered (through permitted development rights) at business centres and on industrial estates  across the country resulting in poor quality homes which negatively impact residents health and wellbeing. The Government should urgently revoke permitted development rights which allow change of use to residential. We support the re-use of vacant or under-used buildings for new homes where they are suitably located, built to a high-quality, and in accordance with local planning policies. This must be done through the planning application process, as homes created through PD rights are too often lower quality, poorly sited and poorly designed, as highlighted by the Government’s own research.

The Planning Advisory Service alongside the University of West of England researched the role that local planning authorities can play in delivering housing-led development on brownfield land. Each case study demonstrates how councils can successfully facilitate the bringing forward of land, work proactively with stakeholders, overcome obstacles and contribute to the delivery of positive outcomes from housing-led developments on brownfield sites. The challenges in each of the case studies vary greatly but the overall picture is one that cannot be understated – brownfield land development can be complex, lengthy and expensive.

Therefore it will be important for the Government to bring forward further opportunities to utilise compulsory purchase powers (CPOs) to facilitate land assembly and expedite the delivery of approved regeneration schemes, as well as providing the necessary resources to facilitate a higher pace and volume of CPOs.

What is truly needed to enable the regeneration and re-use of brownfield land is a resurgence of a holistic and non-competitive funding pot from government, open to local authorities and developers of all sizes, to address the real blockers of brownfield development including land assembly complexities, remediating and securing the safe use of land for habitation and dealing with ensuing viability concerns. We welcome the positive impact that the Brownfield Land Release Fund has had in bringing forward council-owned brownfield sites and greatly support the work of the One Public Estate Programme.

Question 21: Do you agree with the proposed change to paragraph 154g of the current NPPF to better support the development of PDL in the Green Belt?

If the Government is minded to make changes as to the approach to what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it appears sensible to start with land which has been previously developed. 

The changes proposed, which would remove the caveat that development would “not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development” and replacing it with “not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt” is a different test and one which may require clarification or guidance, in particular for those areas where heritage and character such as our historic cities, towns and villages, is of primary importance. 

We urge clarity on whether or not the Government intends to apply the golden rules to all development in the Green Belt which would fall under current NPPF paragraph 153 or just 153g.

Question 22: Do you have any views on expanding the definition of PDL, while ensuring that the development and maintenance of glasshouses for horticultural production is maintained?

There may be localised implications on local economies, workforce and patterns of sustainable transportation through the expanding the definition of PDL to include glasshouses and hardstanding, in particular those areas with a significant horticultural industry. 

Expanding the definition of PDL to include hardstanding and glasshouses would have implications for non-Green Belt areas as well.

Question 23: Do you agree with our proposed definition of grey belt land? If not, what changes would you recommend?

No – the proposed definition of grey belt land as set out in the consultation proposals is too open to interpretation and could have unintended consequences where there is a lack of consistency with approach across the country. The inclusion of “any other parcels and/or areas of Green Belt land” and phrase “limited contribution” to the five Green Belt purposes are too vague for local authorities, developers and communities to clearly understand what the grey belt is and where it is located. 

Clearer definitions and guidance are required to accurately identify grey belt land in both plan-making and decision-making, and to help to prevent the resource-intensive process of planning by appeal. 

Question 24: Are any additional measures needed to ensure that high performing Green Belt land is not degraded to meet grey belt criteria?

There may be instances where landowners allow land in the Green Belt, including previous waste and minerals sites, to degrade or opt to not restore land to previous condition so as to ensure it falls into the grey belt definition. Local authorities should be empowered to challenge such landowners if an application is submitted and evidence, for example from Green Belt reviews and local communities, shows degradation of land. 

Question 25: Do you agree that additional guidance to assist in identifying land which makes a limited contribution of Green Belt purposes would be helpful? If so, is this best contained in the NPPF itself or in planning practice guidance?

Yes – additional guidance which is suitably flexible to allow for local circumstances is welcome. This should be set out in detail in planning practice guidance with specific reference within the NPPF. 

Question 26: Do you have any views on whether our proposed guidance sets out appropriate considerations for determining whether land makes a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes?

The proposed yet undefined phrases for the determination of whether or not land makes a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes including “not strongly perform”, “substantial built development”, “no or little contribution”, “land which is dominated” are too vague and subjective for local authorities, developers and communities to clearly understand and use in planning terms. 

Clearer definitions and guidance are required to accurately identify grey belt land in both plan-making and decision-making and to help to prevent the resource-intensive process of planning by appeal.

Question 27: Do you have any views on the role that Local Nature Recovery Strategies could play in identifying areas of Green Belt which can be enhanced?

If the Government’s approach is to drive forward building on grey belt land, then it must come hand in hand with powers to enable local authorities and landowners to enhance the remaining Green Belt, and prevent deliberate land degradation and/or non-restoration to potentially game the system.

We encourage the Government to release the much-anticipated guidance on Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS). We can see a role for the LNRS in identifying areas of Green Belt which can be enhanced for community, environmental and biological purposes, as well as emphasising rewilding programmes; however we reserve further comment until guidance and methodologies are set out. 

The Government should also set out how LNRS, Green Belt and the upcoming Land Use Framework will interplay and support the outcomes of each piece of work. 

Question 28: Do you agree that our proposals support the release of land in the right places, with previously developed and grey belt land identified first, while allowing local planning authorities to prioritise the most sustainable development locations?

Where a local authority has identified suitable sites for development through a review of their Green Belt in the plan-making process, we agree it is indeed appropriate to introduce a sequential approach to release of Green Belt land to ensure it is the parcels of land which contribute to the Green Belt purposes the least which are released first, assuming as well that they are sustainably located. 

The sequential process must be set out clearly in planning guidance to ensure consistency in methodologies across the country.  

Further clarification is required on what is meant by the final stage of the sequential approach, “higher performing Green Belt sites where these can be made sustainable”. Both the phrases “higher performing” and “made sustainable” are unclear and once again too vague to interpret on a national scale consistently. 

Question 29: Do you agree with our proposal to make clear that the release of land should not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole?

Yes – if the Government is minded to introduce these proposals then it must set out guidance for local authorities which clearly demonstrates the appropriate methodology by which to assess the function of the Green Belt as a whole across the area of a plan.

The Government may wish to consider the appropriate geographical level at which to undertake such an assessment. 

Question 30: Do you agree with our approach to allowing development on Green Belt land through decision making? If not, what changes would you recommend?

In principle, the proposed approach for decision-making where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply or is delivering less than 75 per cent against the Housing Delivery Test, or where there is unmet commercial or other need, development on the Green Belt will not be considered inappropriate on sustainable grey belt land, where golden rules for major development are satisfied, and where development would not fundamentally undermine the function of the Green Belt across the area of the plan as a whole appear sensible. However, in practical terms, our concerns about viability, the undermining of the planning system and local planning authority as a whole and speculative development all remain valid. 

Owing to the proposed and significantly increased new housebuilding targets in the Standard Method, many if not most Green Belt local authorities without an up-to-date Local Plan will find themselves in a position where they cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply nor meet their Housing Delivery Test. The resultant impacts of the presumption in favour of sustainable development are speculative, poor-quality and unplanned developments which undermine the plan-led system and undo community confidence in both local authorities and leaders and the planning system. The proposed safeguards against these factors do not go far enough. 

The Government themselves identifies in the consultation document that “not all PDL or grey belt will be in the most suitable or sustainable location” when outlining their proposals for the sequential test. Already many sites are brought forward in unsuitable locations, and the Government should give local authorities further safeguards to prevent unsuitable grey belt sites coming forward through this approach. 

The Government should set out what golden rules minor or other developments would need to meet in order to come forward by this approach. 

The existing policy, by which Green Belt land can be released where ‘very special circumstances’ exist should be retained in lieu of the proposals. 

Our concerns on the golden rules, as set out in response to Questions 35 and 36, are relevant to this response. 

Question 31: Do you have any comments on our proposals to allow the release of grey belt land to meet commercial and other development needs through plan-making and decision-making, including the triggers for release?

No – our concerns remain the same as in response to Question 30. 

It is not appropriate to use metrics related to housing delivery to determine if grey belt land should be released to meet commercial and other development needs. 

Question 32: Do you have views on whether the approach to the release of Green Belt through plan and decision-making should apply to traveller sites, including the sequential test for land release and the definition of PDL?

Releasing Green Belt land through the plan-making process or decision-making, including through the sequential test, should be determined by local authorities based on evidence as set out in Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments and reviews of the Green Belt. 

As set out previously, the definition of grey belt land must be clarified. 

Question 33: Do you have views on how the assessment of need for traveller sites should be approached, in order to determine whether a local planning authority should undertake a Green Belt review?

Releasing Green Belt land through the plan-making process or decision-making, including through the sequential test, should be determined by local authorities based on evidence as set out in Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments and reviews of the Green Belt. 

Question 34: Do you agree with our proposed approach to the affordable housing tenure mix?

We welcome the Government’s proposal that the tenure split across affordable housing products delivered under the golden rules should be for local authorities to decide. Local authorities know their areas best and are best placed to make decisions on the suitable tenure mix for genuinely affordable homes, including those for social rent, in their areas but ensuring that products defined as affordable truly meet that definition to help rebuild public trust (as set out in our answer to Question 57). 

Question 35: Should the 50 per cent target apply to all Green Belt areas (including previously developed land in the Green Belt), or should the Government or local planning authorities be able to set lower targets in low land value areas?

The golden rules to ensure public benefit from the release of Green Belt land are laudable and play an important strategic role for maximising affordable housing, however their application may not be practical. National policy should be sufficiently flexible to allow local authorities to set appropriate targets for affordable housing on Green Belt sites based on their knowledge and evidence of their area’s needs. 

We note that in paragraph 23 of the consultation proposals, the Government suggest the golden rules will apply to “major development on land released from the Green Belt”. If the Government is minded to introduce the golden rules, and given consideration of the types of parcels of land that may become available for development in Green Belt with the proposed grey belt definition, we urge clarity on if minor and other developments in green Belt will be subject to the golden rules. 

Further, it is unfortunate that the Government clearly state that the approach to affordable housing on the Green Belt through the golden rules is “subject to viability”, an approach not taken with the other two golden rules. Viability pressures remain one of the greatest challenges for local authorities trying to bring forward genuinely affordable and social housing units as well as meeting local planning policy requirements. 

If the Government introduces the 50 per cent target for affordable housing, more work may need to be undertaken to ensure that this important goal does not inhibit the supply of such land being brought forward by the market to enable housing delivery. 

Question 36: Do you agree with the proposed approach to securing benefits for nature and public access to green space where Green Belt release occurs?

The golden rules to ensure public benefit from the release of Green Belt land are laudable however their application may not be practical. National policy should be sufficiently flexible to allow local authorities to set appropriate approaches to securing benefits for nature and public access to green space where Green Belt release occurs based on their knowledge and evidence of their areas needs. 

Clarity is required on the objective “for new residents to be able to access good quality green spaces within a short walk of their homes” if the new development is for commercial or non-residential uses. 

Question 37: Do you agree that Government should set indicative benchmark land values for land released from or developed in the Green Belt, to inform local planning authority policy development?

We support the overall principles behind the Government’s intentions to set indicative benchmark land values for land released from Green Belt. However, it may prove incredibly challenging for Government to identify appropriate indicative benchmarks for land values in the Green Belt, as the value of land and even sites will vary greatly not only across the country but within constituent local authority areas.

One approach that could be explored is identifying benchmark values for individual Green Belt areas, i.e. London or Birmingham, with sufficient flexibility at the local level for authorities to evidence or justify the use of a different, uplifted or lower, figure for plan-making and decision-making. 

Question 38: How and at what level should Government set benchmark land values?

Please see our response to Question 37. 

Question 39: To support the delivery of the golden rules, the Government is exploring a reduction in the scope of viability negotiation by setting out that such negotiation should not occur when land will transact above the benchmark land value. Do you have any views on this approach?

We understand and support the intention of this approach, yet also urge caution as the Government’s indicative benchmark land value for a given area may not be localised or sophisticated enough to reflect site-specific circumstances of why a different price-point may have been paid by a developer.

Question 40: It is proposed that where development is policy compliant, additional contributions for affordable housing should not be sought. Do you have any views on this approach?

It should be for local authorities to determine the appropriate developer contributions, including for policy-compliant levels of affordable housing and infrastructure, to be sought from sites in discussion with developers. 

Question 41: Do you agree that where viability negotiations do occur, and contributions below the level set in policy are agreed, development should be subject to late-stage viability reviews, to assess whether further contributions are required? What support would local planning authorities require to use these effectively?

In principle we agree with this approach. The Government should work closely with the Greater London Authority and other associated stakeholders to understand how effective their London Plan Guidance and Supplementary Planning Guidance, which permits late-stage viability reviews, has been and what approaches could be taken on a nationwide approach. 

Undertaking late-stage viability reviews are likely to be resource-intensive and have a requirement for specific skills within local authorities, so the Government must give consideration for how other areas of the country would be able to use these effectively. There is a significant challenge in resourcing local planning authority teams. Alongside difficulties in recruiting and retaining town planners, there is a much more significant challenge for recruitment and retention with relation to specific planning skills and areas of expertise, such as enforcement, urban design, viability, heritage, ecology and legal.

Question 42: Do you have a view on how golden rules might apply to non-residential development, including commercial development, travellers sites and types of development already considered ‘not inappropriate’ in the Green Belt?

Our responses to Questions 21, 31-33, 35 and 36 provide our views on considerations required for the golden rules to apply to these types of development.   

Question 43: Do you have a view on whether the golden rules should apply only to ‘new’ Green Belt release, which occurs following these changes to the NPPF? Are there other transitional arrangements we should consider, including, for example, draft plans at the regulation 19 stage?

Local Plan proposals at Regulation 19 stage or beyond will already have been subject to evidence based studies including viability assessments. Retrospectively applying the golden rules could lead to delays in plan-making. We therefore agree that should these proposals be introduced, only ‘new’ Green Belt release which follows the publication of a revised NPPF and any plans which have not yet reached the Regulation 19 stage should consider the golden rules. 

There is also a wider question around whether or not the golden rules should only apply to Green Belt sites, and how to ensure public benefit arises from all new development.  

Question 44: Do you have any comments on the proposed wording for the NPPF (Annex 4)?

Our responses to Questions 37-41 cover the topics in Annex 4.

Question 45: Do you have any comments on the proposed approach set out in paragraphs 31 and 32?

We support and have long called for the strengthening of powers on the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) to bring about public benefit from development. Giving local authorities the discretion and local decision-making powers and accountability to bring forward those suitable Green Belt sites, presumably identified as sustainable and suitable through a Green Belt review and the sequential approach, that are not brought forward yet are supported by local communities and leaders for development is welcome. This is a proportionate power to give local authorities to help meet their housing needs. 

We urge that if Homes England are given similar powers, that proposals are brought forward jointly with the local planning authority.

Question 46: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

We offer no further comment on proposals in this chapter.

Question 47: Do you agree with setting the expectation that local planning authorities should consider the particular needs of those who require Social Rent when undertaking needs assessments and setting policies on affordable housing requirements?

Yes – we agree that consideration of the particular needs of those who require homes for social rent should be expected from local authorities when undertaking needs assessments and setting policies on affordable housing requirements. 

We are pleased that the Government acknowledges that local areas are best placed to decide the right mix of affordable housing for their communities, including a mix of genuinely affordable homes for ownership and rent.

Viability pressures remain one of the greatest challenges for local authorities trying to bring forward affordable housing units. We welcomed the amendments made by Government in the Planning Practice Guidance for viability in 2019 which stated that the “cost of fully complying with policy requirements should be accounted for in benchmark land value” and that “under no circumstances will the price paid for land be relevant justification for failing to accord with relevant policies in the plan”. However, we are concerned that councils continue to report that the plan-led system is still being undermined by the use of viability arguments from developers to avoid the need to meet local plan policy requirements including the provision of affordable housing and providing infrastructure contributions.

New policy and regulatory regimes and burdens, such as Biodiversity Net Gain, on developers more often than not results in reductions in the numbers of affordable housing on site than originally planned for. 

We would like to see further amendments made to the viability system – for example, removing the requirement to factor in an assumed developer or landowner return or removal of viability assessments as a material planning consideration entirely. Further, we would urge the Government to urgently review the 2019 amendments to the PPG for viability and assess whether they have achieved their intended objectives. The Government’s efforts to support the resourcing and upskilling of planning departments needs to include strengthening their capacity to rigorously examine viability arguments put forward by developers.

As set out in our response to Chapter 4, we have concerns about the proposed new Standard Method for assessing housing numbers, as it does not assess need, rather it uses two crude measurements with no direct relationship to need to determine the number of homes which should be planned for. Guidance will need to be updated to translate the generic Standard Method figure into needs-based policies and directions for affordable housing requirements. 

We welcome the Government’s narrative shift towards empowering local authorities to deliver more homes for social rent, however this must be backed by practical measures both within and outside the realms of planning policy. 

• The roll out of five-year local housing deals by 2025 to all areas of the country that want them – combining funding from multiple national housing programmes into a single pot. This will provide certainty and efficiencies and could support delivery of an additional 200,000 social homes in a 30-year period.
   
• Giving councils the powers and flexibilities to use the Right to Buy scheme and receipts in their local area will help protect existing valuable social stock and allow councils to invest in the direct delivery of new stock or acquisitions.
   
• The Affordable Homes Programme (AHP) grant levels per unit must be reviewed and increased to deliver more new affordable homes and ensure inflationary pressures do not jeopardise continued delivery.
   
• Housing Revenue Accounts must be strengthened via a long-term rent settlement of at least 10 years alongside restoration of lost revenue due to rent cap/cuts, to give councils certainty on rental income and support long-term business planning.
   
• Further investment should be made in the Brownfield Land Release Fund and One Public Estate programmes, with the opportunity for speedy release of public land and housebuilding on smaller council, health and blue light sites.
   
• Further opportunities should be brought forward to utilise compulsory purchase powers (CPOs) to facilitate land assembly and expedite the delivery of approved regeneration schemes, as well as providing the necessary resources to facilitate a higher pace and volume of CPOs.
   
• Increase flexibility for local authorities in the use of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding to enable it to be invested directly in the delivery of affordable housing (rather than only be applicable to enabling works as at present).

Question 48: Do you agree with removing the requirement to deliver 10 per cent of housing on major sites as affordable home ownership?

Yes – local authorities are best placed to make decisions and determinations on the appropriate and suitable mix of affordable housing types and tenures that come forward in their local areas based on their local housing needs. 

Local authorities play a leading role in developing a locally responsive mix of tenures, which includes homes for sale, as well as social homes and other affordable homes for those who are not ready or do not want to buy. We agree with the consultation wording which outlines that the prescriptive prioritisation of certain types of housing products are not the right approach, as this can force unhelpful trade-offs, and are therefore supportive of the removal of the requirement to deliver 10 per cent of housing on major sites as affordable home ownership. 

Question 49: Do you agree with removing the minimum 25 per cent First Homes requirement?

Yes – local authorities are best placed to make decisions and determinations on the appropriate and suitable mix of affordable housing types and tenures that come forward in their local areas based on their local housing needs. 

We have previously called for the removal of the requirement for 25 per cent of affordable housing units secured through developer contributions to be First Homes and so are welcoming of this proposal. This is because a nationally set First Homes requirement can and has displaced other discounted-market products, particularly affordable and social homes for rent of which there is already an undersupply in many local authority areas. The requirement for developers to deliver First Homes on their sites has also resulted in the provision of a smaller range of housing tenures.

First Homes can and do make a valuable contribution to the mix of housing options, but local planning authorities must maintain the levers to deliver them alongside other housing products in a way that addresses need identified locally as part of the planning process. 

Question 50: Do you have any other comments on retaining the option to deliver First Homes, including through exception sites?

No further comments on First Homes in addition to our response to Question 49. 

Question 51: Do you agree with introducing a policy to promote developments that have a mix of tenures and types?

Yes – in principle, because developments with a mix of tenures and types help to promote vibrant, diverse and mixed communities. However local authorities are best placed to make decisions and determinations on the appropriate and suitable mix of housing types and tenures that come forward in their local areas based on their local housing needs.

Question 52: What would be the most appropriate way to promote high percentage Social Rent/affordable housing developments?

Viability pressures remain one of the greatest challenges for local authorities trying to bring forward genuinely affordable and social housing units. We welcomed the amendments made by Government in the Planning Practice Guidance for viability in 2019 which stated that the “cost of fully complying with policy requirements should be accounted for in benchmark land value” and that “under no circumstances will the price paid for land be relevant justification for failing to accord with relevant policies in the plan”. However, we are concerned that councils continue to report that the plan-led system is still being undermined by the use of viability arguments from developers to avoid the need to meet local plan policy requirements including the provision of affordable and social housing and providing infrastructure contributions.

New policy and regulatory regimes and burdens, such as Biodiversity Net Gain, on developers more often than not results in reductions in the numbers of affordable housing on site than originally planned for. 

We would like to see further amendments made to the viability system – for example, removing the requirement to factor in an assumed developer or landowner return or removal of viability assessments as a material planning consideration entirely. Further, we would urge the Government to urgently review the 2019 amendments to the PPG for viability and assess whether they have achieved their intended objectives.

Local authorities should be given greater powers and flexibilities to drive affordable house building in their areas through a further range of changes to national policy: 

• Amend paragraph 65 of the NPPF so it is more supportive of seeking affordable housing contributions from non-major residential developments where it can be demonstrated by local evidence that doing so will not undermine development viability. Small developments (particularly at Prime and Super Prime value areas) delivering less than 10 homes (either as 100 per cent residential schemes or as part of mixed-use developments) form a significant source of new housing supply that can generate enough value in a number of locations that they could viably make some contribution to much needed future affordable housing supply. As such, the NPPF should not continue to provide a blanket barrier to these schemes making such a contribution, given the clear need to take every opportunity to secure additional affordable housing.
   
• Provide scope for affordable housing contributions to be sought from commercial developments where justification can be provided. This is necessary as the lack of affordable housing options to house the workers necessary to sustain a wide variety of economic activity (of regional and national importance) risks undermining wider economic competitiveness. 
   
• Revoke permitted development rights or amend the prior approval process so that where conversion of commercial or other floorspace to residential does come forward, it is required to contribute towards affordable housing supply. Nationwide the implementation of these permitted development rights result in large numbers of housing developments not needing to make contributions towards affordable housing (alongside multiple other negative consequences such as resulting in poor quality homes, homes in unsustainable and/or unsuitable locations, loss of space suitable for use by small businesses).
   
• There is a strong argument to increase flexibility for local authorities in the use of CIL funding to enable it to be invested directly in the delivery of affordable housing (rather than only be applicable to enabling works as at present).

Question 53: What safeguards would be required to ensure that there are not unintended consequences? For example, is there a maximum site size where development of this nature is appropriate?

Local authorities are best placed to make decisions on the appropriate and suitable levels and tenure mixes of homes on sites in their area. An arbitrary maximum threshold of how much affordable housing a development should provide would be an unhelpful step.

Question 54: What measures should we consider to better support and increase rural affordable housing?

The Government should strengthen policies to support local authorities bring forward appropriate and suitable Rural Exception sites to deliver more homes for social rent and homes which are genuinely affordable. 

Question 55: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 63 of the existing NPPF?

Yes – as corporate parents to children in care, all local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that every looked-after child lives in a loving home that meets their needs. Making explicit reference to looked-after children in the NPPF will be welcome recognition of this vital responsibility and support work to improve placement sufficiency for children in care. 

Relevant guidance should be updated to support local authorities plan for the needs and infrastructure for looked-after children. There are some key considerations the Government must take – it is critical that any guidance or policy gives sufficient flexibility to ensure it is a mixed early years provision (for example private, school-led, voluntary, childminder), as this is most effective for responding to local family and children’s needs. There is also an opportunity for ensuring that there is appropriate support for children with SEND, shared spaces for staff and consideration of wraparound care for children of school age. 

Question 56: Do you agree with these changes?

Local authorities fully support community-led housing which is delivered by community land trusts, housing cooperatives and other community-based groups seeking to help meet local housing need. 

However, we remain concerned that strengthening the provisions in the NPPF to make it easier for organisations that are not Registered Providers to develop new affordable homes would be at odds with the Government’s ambition to strengthen the regulation and oversight of affordable housing. Consideration could instead be given to a simpler, streamlined process for small, volunteer-run organisations that would enable them to satisfy the Regulator of Social Housing’s registration requirements.

Question 57: Do you have views on whether the definition of ‘affordable housing for rent’ in the Framework glossary should be amended? If so, what changes would you recommend?

As set out in our response to Question 56, whilst local authorities are supportive of community-led development and alms-houses, we remain concerned that strengthening the provisions in the NPPF and amending the definition of ‘affordable housing for rent’ in the Framework’s glossary will make it easier for organisations that are not Registered Providers to develop new affordable homes – this would be at odds with the Government’s ambition to strengthen the regulation and oversight of affordable housing.

If the definition of affordable housing underpinning the NPPF is being reviewed there is a strong case for more significant change in line with the Government’s ambition to ensure that affordable housing is genuinely affordable. It is suggested that the words ‘or is at least 20 per cent below local market rents (including service charges where applicable)’ are removed from the definition – retaining the rest of the wording in ‘(a) the rent is set in accordance with the Government’s rent policy for Social Rent or Affordable Rent’.

Particularly in areas with a high disparity between property prices and household incomes, significantly higher discounts from market rates are necessary for homes to be affordable either to those in housing need or key workers. Allowing for products at only a 20 per cent discount from market rates can also increase pressure for the delivery of a larger proportion of smaller size homes, as this may be the only housing type that is remotely affordable.

Question 58: Do you have views on why insufficient small sites are being allocated, and on ways in which the small site policy in the NPPF should be strengthened?

The use of small sites to bring forward new housing units, as well as affordable housing, varies in its efficacy and quantity across the country based on local circumstances such as availability of sites and capacity of developers (including SMEs). Many small sites come forward as windfall development, rather than through the Local Plan process as this is typically quicker. 

Strengthening national policy on small sites should not preclude local authorities from having the flexibility to determine their own local policies and percentages for the use of small sites. We do not agree with the potential introduction of a requirement for authority-specific small-site strategies. 

Question 59: Do you agree with the proposals to retain references to well-designed buildings and places, but remove references to ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ and to amend paragraph 138 of the existing Framework?

Yes – we agree with the removal of the words ‘beautiful’ and ‘beauty’ as they are subjective, not defined, and there was no framework or explicit guidance regarding how places and buildings should be designed or developed. 

We agree with the amendments to paragraph 138 of the NPPF to make clear that the National model Design Code and, where available, local design codes, are the primary means of assessing and improving the design of development. 

Question 60: Do you agree with proposed changes to policy for upwards extensions?

Yes – we agree with the proposed changes to the policy for upwards extension to make clear that mansard roofs are just one example of upwards extension. 

Question 61: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

We clearly recognise the need to strengthen and increase housebuilding across the country and believe that all local authorities have their part to play - there is an appetite across the sector to work constructively to improve housebuilding outcomes.

We welcome the Government’s narrative shift towards empowering local authorities to deliver more homes for social rent, and affordable housing overall, however this must be backed by practical measures both within and outside the realms of planning policy. 

• The roll out of five-year local housing deals by 2025 to all areas of the country that want them – combining funding from multiple national housing programmes into a single pot. This will provide certainty and efficiencies and could support delivery of an additional 200,000 social homes in a 30-year period.
   
• Giving councils the powers and flexibilities to use the Right to Buy scheme and receipts in their local area will help protect existing valuable social stock and allow councils to invest in the direct delivery of new stock or acquisitions.
   
• The Affordable Homes Programme (AHP) grant levels per unit must be reviewed and increased to deliver more new affordable homes and ensure inflationary pressures do not jeopardise continued delivery.
   
• Housing Revenue Accounts must be strengthened via a long-term rent settlement of at least 10 years alongside restoration of lost revenue due to rent cap/cuts, to give councils certainty on rental income and support long-term business planning.
   
• Further investment should be made in the Brownfield Land Release Fund and One Public Estate programmes, with the opportunity for speedy release of public land and housebuilding on smaller council, health and blue light sites.
   
• Further opportunities should be brought forward to utilise compulsory purchase powers (CPOs) to facilitate land assembly and expedite the delivery of approved regeneration schemes, as well as providing the necessary resources to facilitate a higher pace and volume of CPOs.
   
• Increase flexibility for local authorities in the use of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding to enable it to be invested directly in the delivery of affordable housing (rather than only be applicable to enabling works as at present).

Society is ageing and more people require housing that meets their needs as they age. Between 2014 and 2039, over 70 per cent of projected household growth will be made up of households with someone aged 60 or older. The suitability of the housing stock is of critical importance to the health of individuals and impacts on public spending, particularly adult social care, and the NHS.

Councils are well placed to exercise local leadership and take a greater strategic approach to enhance the housing and lifestyle choices for people in later life. Integrated action in the fields of housing and planning can align with some of the most important policy areas currently challenging national and local government – how to reform and integrate the NHS, social care, and public health in the context of population ageing, and how to increase housing supply delivery and build more resilient and healthy neighbourhoods.

The NPPF should support the supply of specialist older people’s housing: councils should set out in their evidence base as part of developing local plans, details of the need for different types of housing suited to older people, including mainstream housing that is suitably designed and/or adapted and specialist types of housing, such as retirement housing and housing with care.

To support local authorities, we would recommend that guidelines are published by the Government through the Task Force on Housing for Older People, that clarify the different housing models/typologies for older people with appropriate recommendations regarding planning Use Class and planning facilitation measures for the assessment of applications.

Our report Housing our ageing population contains other recommendations and case studies of councils who are identifying the future housing needs of older people in their local area.

Finally, we support and urge swift action to support the recommendations of the Securing the Future of England’s Council Housing report, led by Southwark Council and signed by over 100 local authority landlords, to restore lost income and unlock local authority capacity. These solutions include: 

1. a new fair and sustainable Housing Revenue Account (HRA) model, including an urgent £644 million one-off rescue injection, and long-term, guaranteed rent and debt agreements
    
2. reforms to unsustainable Right to Buy policies
    
3. removing red tape on existing funding
    
4. a new, long-term Green & Decent Homes Programme
    
5. urgent action to restart stalled building projects, avoiding the loss of construction sector capacity and a market downturn.

Question 62: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 86 b) and 87 of the existing NPPF?

Yes – we agree with the proposed additions to paragraphs 86b and 87. Local authorities are already supportive of growth industries, including those mentioned in this consultation. A key obstacle to more expedient decision-making is under-resourced planning departments both in terms of capacity and also capability when it comes to determining applications and the impacts of more niche industries on local areas. 

Local authorities recognise the importance of delivering new and improved digital infrastructure across the country. Not only does better connectivity enable key day-to-day services, but it also brings key socio-economic benefits like reduced energy consumption, increased efficiency through remote working opportunities, and a boosted local economy by helping businesses operate online. It is also clear that digital infrastructure can bring direct benefits to local communities – for example, Microsoft indicate that around 50 people are employed in each of their datacentres. 

Furthermore, we know that Artificial Intelligence is extremely energy intensive and it will require the delivery of digital infrastructure such as data centres to enable the public sector and wider society to benefit to the full extent. This includes ensuring that data processing is GDPR compliant. 

However, there are still many areas across the country, especially smaller, rural and more remote councils that struggle with connectivity. 17 per cent of rural residential premises and 30 per cent of rural commercial premises still do not have access to superfast broadband. Furthermore, analysis from the County Councils Network shows that just 21 per cent of premises in county areas have access to gigabit broadband, compared with London with 70 per cent gigabit coverage, and large towns and cities in the North and the West Midlands with an average of 51 per cent.

Local authorities are well aware of the need to deliver digital infrastructure. In a recent LGA survey of councils, 80 per cent of respondents outlined they had amended or were looking to amend local plans to ensure a more streamlined approach to digital infrastructure deployment. The proposal to ‘create a positive expectation that suitable sites for these types of modern economy uses are identified in local plans’ would be in line with this work.

Question 63: Are there other sectors you think need particular support via these changes? What are they and why?

Yes – we believe that there are other industries which should be supported further in the NPPF, including green technology industries to drive our ambitions for net zero, and the creative industries. 

Paragraph 87(c) should be amended to explicitly reference the creative industries as a sector of “local, regional or national importance,” which should be positively considered in planning decisions.

 Alongside the explicit amendment, we have identified three overarching goals for the Government to embed into the revised NPPF that would support the Creative Industries, as a key driver of regional economic growth and diversification.

• Need for flexible and diverse spaces: The provision of flexible, affordable, and appropriately located commercial sites is crucial for sustaining the growth and innovation within our sector. These spaces need to be well-integrated into local communities to foster creative clusters, which in turn drive regeneration and support local economies, aligning with the broader objectives of the NPPF to promote sustainable development and economic resilience. 
• Supporting regional growth: Ensuring that planning policies explicitly support the expansion of the Creative Industries at a regional level is critical for decentralised economic growth and tackling regional inequalities, which is a key objective of the NPPF (Section 2: Achieving sustainable development).
• Support for creative hubs and clusters: Creative hubs are significant drivers of soft power, enhancing the UK’s ability to project cultural influence at a global level. It is critical that local planning authorities support the development of creative hubs and clusters, particularly in regions where such developments can have a transformative impact on local economies.

Question 64: Would you support the prescription of data centres, gigafactories, and/or laboratories as types of business and commercial development which could be capable (on request) of being directed into the NSIP consenting regime?

The NSIP consenting regime should be used only in cases of genuine nationally important infrastructure projects. The bar should be set high for this threshold as local authorities cannot scrutinise applications under the NSIP regime to the same extent as planning applications, nor can they engage their communities as effectively. 

If the Government were minded to do this, it must take into account the findings and recommendations of the National Infrastructure Commission which found that since 2012 consenting times have increased by 65 per cent, moving from 2.6 to 4.2 years, and the rate of judicial review has spiked in recent years to 58 per cent from a long term average of ten per cent. It would be of no economic benefit if consent for the development of new industry infrastructure was held up by a slow and creaking national consenting regime. 

Local authorities are keenly aware of the benefits that enhanced digital infrastructure can bring. However, whilst digital infrastructure such as data centres have a limited impact on the local community and council resources, this is not the same for things such as telecommunications masts. The LGA has previously called for the Government to revoke permitted development rights for the erection of masts. Therefore, it may be appropriate for some digital infrastructure such as data centres to fall under the NSIP regime, but not others including telecommunications masts.

Most laboratories of significant economic or industrial interest would normally be located within and around existing centres of excellence, for example Cambridge Science Park. The choice for siting these laboratories is often attracted by and reliant on the benefits of agglomeration – being close to academic institutions, strong local industrial and economic links, access to highly skilled workforce. Bringing such laboratories into an NSIP regime, when such developments would be so dependent on other parts of industry and social and physical infrastructure which fall under the local planning regime, does not appear practical. 

Question 65: If the direction power is extended to these developments, should it be limited by scale, and what would be an appropriate scale if so?

The direction power should follow the same criteria as set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013 and the associated Policy Statement including the project being of national significance regarding economic impact and driving growth, impacts across more than a single local authority area, and is a substantial physical size.

Question 66: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Planning is about creating communities linked with the right economic activity and public services, whilst conserving and enhancing the natural and local environment. Critically, local authorities must be empowered to take their residents along with them on this journey to develop and build more homes. That is because it is not just homes that are required to create thriving, attractive and desirable places and communities in which to live but the accompanying local and national infrastructure, to be developed both now and phased at early and timely stages alongside the development of new homes, which is of primary concern for residents. 

Councils should be further empowered to enforce developers to come forward with committed infrastructure agreed alongside planning applications. 

Member authorities often relay that a crucial factor that stalls the delivery of much needed homes and infrastructure is grid connections. The Government must work with the relevant sectors to unblock these issues and build grid capacity and connections to enable economic growth. The Government should also give consideration to the role and number of statutory consultees on planning applications to ensure sites can become live as soon as possible. 

Question 67: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 100 of the existing NPPF?

Yes – we agree that changes should be made to the NPPF which would place significant weight on the important of new, expanded or upgraded public service infrastructure when considering proposals for development. It is important that local communities and local leaders can still engage and influence the development of these public service infrastructures through the plan-making and decision-making process.  

Question 68: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraph 99 of the existing NPPF?

Yes, we agree with the proposed changes to the NPPF to include reference to early year places. Given the variation in providers and the role of voluntary, private and independent organisations and businesses that are involved in early years provision, careful thought needs to be given in the practicalities of this approach. The LGA has long called for councils to have the appropriate powers and levers to manage the early years market.

Question 69: Do you agree with the changes proposed to paragraphs 114 and 115 of the existing NPPF?

Yes, we agree with the proposed changes to the NPPF to promote a vision-led approach to transport planning. However, such an approach must come hand in hand with an effective plan-led system which requires planning, highways and transport departments to be adequately resourced, and access to Government transport funding that is timely, flexible and long-term and sufficient control over all traffic management and enforcement tools. A vision-led approach to transport planning and the subsequent testing of scenarios may result in increased costs to local planning authorities. Guidance and technical documents should be reviewed in light of these changes. 

Question 70: How could national planning policy better support local authorities in (a) promoting healthy communities and (b) tackling childhood obesity?

The NPPF should contain wording that explicitly states that a primary purpose of the planning system is to both promote good-health and prevent ill-health and create places in which people of all residents can live safe, active and healthy lives, including objectives to reduce health inequalities, helping people to incorporate more physical activity into their lives and address public health priorities, such as promoting a healthy weight.  

The LGA strongly supports the Obesity Health Alliance’s response to this consultation. 

Research consistently shows the most effective preventative measure against ill health and poor mental wellbeing is being active. This is demonstrated by the latest Active Lives Adult Survey which shows: 

• 25.7 per cent of adults were inactive in 2022/23. This figure is almost identical to 2015/16 when 25.6 per cent of adults were inactive. 
   
• The trend is similar for children and young people. The 33 per cent of children who were less active in 2017/18 had improved slightly to 30 per cent of young people being less active in 2022/23. 

The research also shows trends and preferences in how adults, children and young people want to be active, and evidence of what works. For example: 

• Active play and informal activity are the top activity for 5 -11-year-olds, team sports are top for 11 to 16-year-olds and active travel is consistent across all age groups. 
   
• 58 per cent of children and young people use active travel (walk, ride, scooter) to get to school.
   
• 11.8 per cent more children and young people are taking part in gym and fitness activities compared to five years ago.
   
• There are 4.5 million more adult walkers compared to seven years.
   
• Over a million more adults have walked or cycled for travel in the past year

Given the lack of progress on tackling inactivity and the changes in behaviours, we must identify the fundamental changes that are needed to make progress in this area if Government is to deliver on both its mission to build an NHS fit for the future and mission to break down barriers to opportunity. This NPPF consultation is a once in a lifetime opportunity to embed these changes. 

There needs to be evidence-based planning guidance and training to support local areas / planners to design environments that meet the specific and unique needs of certain demographics. This would help to reduce inequalities and would create inclusive healthy and safe environments for all parts of communities to enjoy. An integrated approach across many disciplines, such as parks and open spaces, transport, health and wellbeing, planning, regeneration, young people, social care, community services, workplaces is needed. 

Neighbourhood design influences physical activity levels, travel patterns, social connectivity, mental and physical health and wellbeing outcomes. Because health is so inextricably linked to the environment in which people live and work, local planning authorities have a clear role in using the built environment to improve health outcomes for local populations. 

Local authorities are experienced at engaging and consulting with their local communities. Moving away from a traditional planning approach that assumes residents will drive for most journeys empowers councils and their partners to take a ‘vision-led’ approach and to consult with local communities on what they want for their neighbourhood, how they want to get around and designing places and new transport infrastructure according to this ‘vision’. Research shows that diverting money away from roads frees up investment for cycle paths, pedestrian crossings, walking routes, playgrounds and other play opportunities, subsidised leisure facilities and nurseries that benefit the whole community as well as deliver on many of the Government’s missions. 

Below are some of our recommendations for how national planning policy can better support local authorities in promoting healthy communities and tackling childhood obesity:

• England has one of the highest rates of unhealthy weight of other western countries. The prevalence of obesity in England has more than doubled in the last 25 years. Evidence clearly points to the quality of the local environment in which people live, play and work as a contributing factor to excess calorie consumption and inactive lifestyles. The planning and design of the environment can help address obesity while contributing positively to sustainability and a healthy lifestyle.
   
• Healthy planning policies can positively impact the health of our communities, but the growth of hot food takeaway (HFTA) restaurants and other health harming businesses limits progress. Retailers including Greggs, KFC and McDonald’s have commenced individual growth strategies to increase the number of their respective establishments in the UK. As these businesses continue to grow, we must consider what is being displaced in our high streets and communities to accommodate them. For example, local authorities have a place-making role to play in helping to create resilient and revitalised high streets by adapting them to create new experiential offer to entice visitors back. In some areas this includes offering units to cultural and leisure assets such as museums, charities, community groups and leisure facilities that can help improve both access and physical and mental wellbeing. 
   
• The NPPF should seek to incorporate active lifestyles more holistically through planning – for example more explicit references and connections between the ‘Promoting healthy and safe communities’ chapter with others including ‘Ensuring the vitality of town centres’.
   
• The evidence suggests greater exposure to takeaway food outlets is associated with eating more takeaway food and having a higher body mass index. More deprived parts of Britain face a ‘double burden’ – with both higher concentrations of hot food takeaways and those takeaways serving, on average, less healthy food than those in less deprived areas. Hot food takeaways are highly profitable and are more likely to be found in more deprived areas. There are very few checks and balances to stop the continued rise of HFTAs; nationally, planning policy needs to carefully consider when their presence becomes excessive. 
   
• Planning policy needs to place greater emphasis on empowering citizens to actively participate in shaping their communities. This includes providing opportunities for residents to co-create and influence the design of local high streets through collaborative engagement and co-production. Government should set out guidance for councils to improve communication and capacity building as the foundations of local engagement. There should be an explicit focus on ‘place-making’ rather than ‘planning’ – a wider scope and label that is more intuitive and which can then be applied into planning. 
   
• Re-establish the purpose of planning as a tool to improve health and wellbeing. Use the revision of the National Planning Policy Framework and new National Development Management Policies, and other related documents such as the National Model Design Code as an opportunity to define health improvement and a reduction of health inequality as the goal of planning and make improvements to healthy life expectancy and a reduction in health inequity a statutory duty:
   
  • The new ‘Design Codes’ and National Development Management Policies should explicitly address healthy food environments, including hot food takeaways. 
     
  • ‘Use Classes’ should be reviewed and amended to ensure that there is consistency on all hot food outlets regardless of the amount of seating they provide, with unhealthy food outlets separated out from other businesses currently also classified as ‘Use Class E’. 
     
  • If a business vacates a HFTA premises and it remains out of use, we propose that the empty establishment should lose its class status as ‘Use Class E’ after a period of one year and prospective applicants required to complete a new application should they wish to open a HFTA on this site. 
     
• Addressing food deserts and increasing access to healthy and affordable food: Research shows that most people in the UK do not meet government dietary recommendations. The most recent UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) data shows that population intakes of saturated fat, sugar, and salt are above the government recommendations whereas intakes of fibre, fruit and vegetables, and oily fish are below government recommendations. The Government could explore how it could support local authorities to offer discretionary business-rate relief to incentivise retailers who sell healthier food. 
   
• Grant local authorities greater powers to limit unhealthy advertising in their areas. At present, many councils are beginning to implement healthier advertising policies to restrict unhealthy advertising, but this is limited to council-owned assets. There are many other sites throughout our communities where councils have no power to act to control advertising of unhealthy products, for example, the growing number of ‘digital screens’ with small phone boxes in our towns and cities. Companies are exploiting a loophole in the law to allow what is tantamount to Trojan telephone boxes being used as advertising spaces rather than the original purpose of providing a place for people to use a phone. As a result pedestrians are being bombarded with a series of eyesores that blight the public highway, often advertising unhealthy products. 
   
• Planning policy should ensure there are opportunities for the public to engage in shaping the advertising landscape in their towns and cities, challenging the dominance of corporate outdoor advertising. Advertising plays a significant role in shaping our cultural and material experiences, driving consumption, increasing production, and contributing to pollution – ultimately affecting the health of both our environment and our bodies. Between 2022 and 2023, McDonald’s, Coca Cola, KFC and Pepsi alone spent £168 million on outdoor advertising promoting junk food.
   
• Public health teams should be better embedded in the planning system by making them a statutory consultee, with clearly defined planning functions and adequate resources to take on this role. This includes participation in preparation of a Local Plan and during pre-application discussions for major developments or those that may have significant health impacts.
   
• Government should enhance and make greater use of call-in powers for appeals which are repeatedly made and defeated against adopted local public health plans to safeguard the integrity of local planning processes.
   
• The planning system alone cannot solve the problem of obesity whose causes are many and complex. One obvious obstacle is that local authorities’ planning powers can do nothing to address the clustering of fast food outlets that are already in place. Nor can planning decisions influence the quality or nutritional value of takeaway food. More robust measures are required to control the proliferation of takeaways. These could include granting local authorities additional powers to extend exclusion zones around schools and restricting numbers of hot food takeaways in town centres and local neighbourhoods.
   
• The Government must recognise the key role Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) play in the planning system and shaping communities, adding considerable detail to local policies resulting in higher quality development outcomes. SPD content varies widely yet often contains policies which are highly localised to the needs of the local area, and can include policies and guidance which can, for example, prevent the over proliferation of hot food takeaway units on high streets and near schools. They also support the aims and objectives of local plans and occasionally are written in partnership with other public sector bodies.
   
• Local authorities do not claim that their planning decisions alone will have an immediate measurable impact on obesity rates, but that they are a crucial part of an overall systems change that can move us away from an “obesogenic environment” towards an environment that is supportive of good health for everyone.

Question 71: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Improving health for our children and communities can only be achieved if the social determinants of health are addressed. There is little use in simply treating people for a health condition if the root cause of the health condition is not also addressed. For example, childhood obesity can’t be tackled unless all families have access to healthy and affordable food. 

Any efforts to tackle the causes of obesity needs to be part of a whole systems cross-government approach so we can ensure a healthier future for our children.

This comprehensive approach must include decisive action to protect children from unhealthy food advertising whether on TV, online, or in outdoor spaces. It should also encourage food and drink companies to make their products healthier by reducing sugar, salt, and calorie content, and ensure that health-harming products, such as energy drinks, are no longer sold to children. 

Further investment in the public health grant and in other vital areas of public health and prevention is required for local councils and their partners to improve the health of their communities and prevent a further widening of health inequalities. At a minimum, we need to restore the funding cuts to local government and to public health which has suffered a cut of 27 per cent in real terms since 2015/16.

Physical activity and grassroots sport have an essential role in tackling the loneliness and obesity epidemics that pose a longer-term threat to our nation’s health. Grassroots and community sport and hyperlocal organisations known as “Locally Trusted Organisations” also have a fundamental role in bringing communities together, promoting mixing of different groups in healthy competition, improving access to sporting opportunities and as a positive activity for young people and opening up volunteering and training opportunities.

Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system mentions behavioural interventions as a critical part of a vision-led approach. It is positive that the reforms advocate a joint approach to encouraging behaviour change and creating healthy environments. We encourage officials from MHCLG to meet with the LGA’s Transformation Network’s sub-group on embedding behaviour change in active travel to discuss how the approach could be embedded in the reforms. 

Recent governments have set bold ambitious goals to improve health and reduce inequalities, but they have often avoided the population-wide policy actions needed to achieve these aims. National strategies have largely emphasised encouraging individual behaviour change, rather than creating healthy environments for all. 

In the absence of national action, councils up and down the country have led the way, continuing to drive efforts at the community level to improve health and address inequalities driven by factors such as tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy food. For example, Luton Council (amongst many others) has implemented a policy to restrict unhealthy food advertising across council-owned assets. 

Planning healthy weight environments will only ever be one element in helping to achieve a downward trend in obesity in children and adults – but it is a vital element. With strong leadership, closer working partnerships across council departments, and the active involvement of other local stakeholders, we can ensure that the places we plan and create today will benefit the health and wellbeing of future generations. Only cross-sector, system-wide action can truly begin to turn the tide on rising ill health and address the root causes of obesity. Our wider recommendations include:

• Address the current capacity, skills, and knowledge gaps within local government (particularly within planning) and recognise the need to bolster support in this area to deliver healthier neighbourhoods through a whole systems approach. This may include encouraging universities and professional organisations (for example, the Royal Town Planning Institute, Royal Institute of British Architects, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, and the Landscape Institute) to better integrate health and behaviour change interventions and insights into curriculums.
   
• Reform funding, focusing on a long-term approach that prioritises a needs and place-based approach rather than ad hoc funding for separate projects that is not always directed to the places most in need. This will involve taking a more long-term view on returns on investment and greater local fiscal autonomy. Examples of reforms to funding include, but are not limited to, a review of the public health grant, ten-year rent settlements and the ability for councils to set their own planning fees. 
   
• Government should develop an evidence-based pathway for councils to assist existing businesses to transition to healthier practices and increase the prevalence of healthier options.

Finally, we propose that existing paragraph 96c of the NPPF should be amended to the following:

c) Enable and support healthy lifestyles which promote good health and prevent ill-health, especially where these would address identified local health and wellbeing needs and reduce health inequalities. This includes reducing key preventable risk factors for ill health, such as obesity and physical inactivity. 

• Promotion of good health can be achieved via provision of services such as safe and accessible green spaces, active travel routes, sport and leisure facilities and by ensuring that all households are within easy reach of retailers who offer healthy, affordable food. The provision of allotments and layouts that encourage walking and cycling also contribute to promoting health.
   
• Prevention of ill-health can be achieved by reducing the availability and advertising of health-harming products, particularly to children and managing proliferation and overconcentration of certain uses which may be deemed unhealthy subject to health evidence.

Question 72: Do you agree that large onshore wind projects should be reintegrated into the NSIP regime?

Consideration needs to be given into what is the purpose of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) regime. When considering whether onshore wind should be reintegrated into it, we need to consider what size and scale of onshore wind is of national significance. The NSIP regime should not be considered as a route to bypass local decision making but should instead be a route to ensure nationally significant projects are delivered. Onshore wind is now a well understood technology and is relatively cheap and therefore the impact on local communities becomes more of a key consideration when determining the NSIP threshold.

Question 73: Do you agree with the proposed changes to the NPPF to give greater support to renewable and low carbon energy?

Yes – we agree with the proposed changes. 

Question 74: Some habitats, such as those containing peat soils, might be considered unsuitable for renewable energy development due to their role in carbon sequestration. Should there be additional protections for such habitats and/or compensatory mechanisms put in place?

Yes – we agree additional protections or compensatory mechanisms for such habitats should be put in place for certain habitats unsuitable for renewable energy development. 

Question 75: Do you agree that the threshold at which onshore wind projects are deemed to be Nationally Significant and therefore consented under the NSIP regime should be changed from 50 megawatts (MW) to 100MW?

Question 76: Do you agree that the threshold at which solar projects are deemed to be Nationally Significant and therefore consented under the NSIP regime should be changed from 50MW to 150MW?

Question 77: If you think that alternative thresholds should apply to onshore wind and/or solar, what would these be?

We address Questions 75 – 77 together. It is the LGA’s view that planning applications for renewable energy that will have an impact on local communities and place should be considered through the traditional planning application route to ensure local viewpoints can be considered as part of the planning process. As such we agree with the proposed increase to the threshold for ground mount solar to be considered nationally significant to 150MW, and onshore wind to 100MW. These limits should be reviewed at more regular intervals using data and evidence collected from local authorities, communities, infrastructure providers and other key parties. 

Question 78: In what specific, deliverable ways could national planning policy do more to address climate change mitigation and adaptation?

The NPPF must be stronger on promoting sustainable and resilient place-making: sustainable by promoting active and public transport (see our responses in Chapter 8) and reducing dependency on cars through new and existing developments, and resilient by creating places that are intuitively resilient to overheating and flooding.

Within a clear set of expectations set by a national framework, local planning authorities are best placed to make decisions about ways in which to address climate change mitigation and adaptation in their local areas, and therefore the NPPF should be suitably flexible to accommodate this. Local authorities create places and are frequently looking to plan and locate renewable energy infrastructure, with or without micro-grids, and heat networks and are therefore based placed to take a whole system view.

One example would be allowing local authorities to set higher energy efficiency standards than required by building regulations where viability allows, and renounce the Written Ministerial Statement from December 2023. Local authorities should also have the flexibility to go further than building regulations on other areas such as cooling, flood prevention, energy use, and resource efficiency depending on the specific attributes of their local area. This is also an area of concern with the proposed National Development Management Policies (see our response to Question 105).

The Government must also seek to provide overall leadership and clarity on how local authorities can being together spatial and land-use strategies across places including DEFRA’s Land Use Framework, Local Nature Recovery Strategies, local / regional energy spatial plans, relevant skills and workforce plans, river catchment plans and Local Growth Plans. 

The NPPF is currently silent on embodied carbon associated with buildings. Chapter 14 should be updated to recognise that decisions on whether to repurpose, adapt and/or extend existing buildings, rather than demolish and replace them, has a major impact on the country’s carbon emissions. Not reflecting this in the NPPF or other national policy will have a significant impact on the UK’s ability to meet their net-zero targets. It should therefore be made clear that decisions on the sustainability and environmental performance of a building should consider embodied carbon, alongside the delivery of other policy objectives and public benefits (such as the delivery of affordable housing). There is currently a heavy emphasis in government policy on operational emissions, but as further progress is made on grid-decarbonisation, embodied carbon will remain a significant source of emissions.

The Government should also urgently bring forward a more ambitious Future Homes and Buildings Standard as soon as is practically possible, to reduce the future costs and disruption of building homes today that we know are not ready for tomorrow. This will also enable a more efficient use of the workforce, especially in sectors where skill gaps exist. Proposals to end fossil fuel heating were positive and should be taken forward, and further built on to include an element of mandatory roof top solar PV and battery storage. This can save householders financially and reduce pressure on the grid. 

A new Standard could do more to incentivise a reduction of embodied carbon in building material; cement, steel, and aluminium are significant contributors to emissions. It should also support other agendas such as infrastructure supporting waste recycling, particularly in flats. The Standard should seek to introduce measures for promoting efficient cooling, including cooling technology and taking design approaches that reduce the likelihood of overheating.

Finally, we suggest the addition of ‘wildfire’ as a consideration when plan-making and decision-making. Existing paragraph 157 of the NPPF could be re-drafted to, “plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes, wildfire and the risk of overheating from rising temperatures”.

One of the key climate adaptations that our built environment must make over the coming years is resilience to wildfire. There are well documented dangers particularly at the rural-urban interface, where wildfires from rural land can encroach onto urban areas, and where urban fires can spread to neighbouring rural land. When making planning decisions, it is crucial to consider this threat to ensure the most severe risks, such as those at the rural-urban interface, are managed. As exemplified by the wildfires in summer 2022, we expect to see a continued increase in UK wildfires due to more extreme and prolonged heat. The NPPF can help ensure that new developments are located in areas with minimal wildfire risk and that the separation of rural and urban areas is maintained to mitigate risk to life, landscape and property. The suggested amendment to the Framework would help to achieve this goal. 

In addition to the above, further guidance will be required to allow planning departments to effectively mitigate the risk that wildfire poses to communities. We encourage the Government to work with partners to develop this guidance and capitalise on the expertise of the fire and land management sectors.

Question 79: What is your view of the current state of technological readiness and availability of tools for accurate carbon accounting in plan-making and planning decisions, and what are the challenges to increasing its use?

We do not have a view on the current state of technological readiness and availability of tools for accurate carbon accounting in plan-making and planning decisions, but we would advocate for the Government to provide consistency and support, agreeing one method of carbon accounting rather than a series of different methodologies which would increase complexity in the planning system. 

Question 80: Are any changes needed to policy for managing flood risk to improve its effectiveness?

We are aware that the previous Government was due to consult on Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). There is a need to ensure consistency in the implementation, design, construction, adoption and maintenance of SUDS and therefore we call for clarity on the Government’s position. The LGA supports the implementation of Schedule 3 of the Flooding and Water Act and the requirement for new development to include sustainable drainage systems, so long as it is implemented with the right resources for local authorities to develop the additional statutory duties in their role as SUDS Approval Bodies.

Permitted development rights remove the ability of local authorities and local communities to shape the area they live in and ensure homes are built to a high standard with the necessary infrastructure in place. Feedback from our members is that nationally prescribed permitted development rights can exacerbate local flood risk through the inappropriate use of non-porous materials on floodplains, and the cumulative effect this has on a local area. Further, the National Infrastructure Commission has called for changes to permitted development rights in the context of flooding due to unplanned increases in impermeable surfaces such as households paving over their front gardens to create driveways. We continue to urge Government to revoke permitted development rights so that decisions on development can be considered in full through the planning process. 

National policy on small scale interventions, at the house or site level, should be strengthened to stress the importance of protecting and enhancing biodiversity, and supporting guidance and advice on good practice should be published. It is important that local authorities retain the flexibility to build and develop their own guidance on small scale interventions, to reflect local circumstances. The use of artificial grass in new developments in and around homes should be limited as far as possible in policy.

We would like to see building regulations changed to include mandatory flood protection measures for new properties in high risk areas. These would require developers to introduce measures like raised electrical sockets, fuse boxes, controls and wiring, sealed floors, and raised damp-proof courses.

Question 81: Do you have any other comments on actions that can be taken through planning to address climate change?

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is a complex but potentially transformative policy for protecting and growing the natural environment which will be critical to a sustainable future. We have previously raised concerns over the lack of detail and support on issues related to the implementation of mandatory BNG. We recognise the effort of Government, its agencies, local authorities, and developers to make progress since however, in our view, many of the risks are still live. 

We have a particular concern with the progress of the off-site market for delivering BNG. Hopefully an off-site market and regulatory process will emerge over time, but more must be done now to enable it in a planned way. As we see it, there are three routes for securing land for off-site BNG, and challenges with each one: 

• Progress with establishing responsible bodies to oversee and create conservation covenants has been slow, with only a small number of bodies approved so far.
   
• Sites could be secured via section 106 agreements - however, the expectation on local authorities’ role is not clear, and there has been no support or funding. Entering into such agreements is not a planning function, it is a significant new regulatory undertaking bringing about long-term risks to councils. Many may not want to play this role, those that do have a significant level of work and learning to do. 
   
• Sites could be secured by the national credit scheme administered by Natural England - however, this is a deliberately expensive option for developers, to incentivise local units, these are costs that smaller developers may not be able to meet. 

Recognising the above, we believe it is important Government work with all partners to create a transitional plan to provide some time to allow a widespread off-site BNG market to develop, which might include:

• a support package for responsible authorities and support to designing conservation covenants, including with local authorities
   
• a similar package providing clarity, resources and support for local authorities that may want to enter into section 106 agreements to secure gains over 30 years 
   
• explore other means to expedite local authorities to bring forward their own sites for use in off-site BNG market
   
• explore other solutions, for instance whether the Environment Agency could play a role in regulating the off-site market and providing oversight
   
• and in the short term, protecting small builders by discounting national BNG credits for a short term.

Question 82: Do you agree with removal of this text from the footnote?

Yes – we agree with the removal of the text from existing footnote 64 to provide greater clarity in planning terms for the protection of the best and most versatile agricultural land. 

Question 83: Are there other ways in which we can ensure that development supports and does not compromise food production?

The government should work with local authorities, who are both planning authorities as well as place leaders to ensure food production and the best and most versatile agricultural land is not compromised. Local government can convene local stakeholders and provide place leadership to support the development of growth and business support (including for the agricultural sector), skills and jobs. Strengthening the relationship between national and local government will enable us to collectively try to mitigate negative implications on food production.

Maintaining levels of protection for existing allotments and the provision of new allotment sites will help to ensure development supports local levels of food production. 

There could be a further role for Land Use Frameworks to identify the best and most versatile agricultural land to ensure it retains appropriate significance and protections in local plan preparation and decision-making.  

Question 84: Do you agree that we should improve the current water infrastructure provisions in the Planning Act 2008, and do you have specific suggestions for how best to do this?

Yes – however as outlined in our response to Questions 64, 72 and 98-101, it is important to consider what truly is a nationally significant project and to recognise that the NSIP process removes local decision-making powers from local authorities, reduces the role of community consultation, and is currently undertaken with no cost-recovery mechanism for relevant local authorities. The NSIP regime has experienced a 65 per cent increase in consenting time since 2012, so the Government must ensure there is sufficient resource. 

Question 85: Are there other areas of the water infrastructure provisions that could be improved? If so, can you explain what those are, including your proposed changes?

We offer no further comment. 

Question 86: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

We offer no further comment or suggestions relating to proposals in this chapter. 

Question 87: Do you agree that we should we replace the existing intervention policy criteria with the revised criteria set out in this consultation?

Councils are working hard with their communities to draft and deliver Local Plans for their areas which balance the needs of existing and future communities. Intervention in this process from the Secretary of State should only be used a last resort, and should the Government choose to revise the criteria on which intervention is determined, it is welcomed that these would be applied flexibility and that local authorities would retain the opportunity to put forward exceptional circumstances to defend their position. 

Question 88: Alternatively, would you support us withdrawing the criteria and relying on the existing legal tests to underpin future use of intervention powers?

As set out in our response to Question 87 – intervention in the plan-making process from the Secretary of State should only be used a last resort. Should the intervention criteria be withdrawn entirely it is welcomed that local authorities would be given the opportunity to set out relevant exceptional circumstances to defend their position. 

Question 89: Do you agree with the proposal to increase householder application fees to meet cost recovery?

Yes – we agree that householder application fees should be increased to meet cost recovery. 

Householder applications make up the majority of planning application types that local authorities determine across the country – in 2023/2024 householder applications accounted for over 50 per cent of all applications nationally (173,258 decisions out of 332,930 decisions). It is routinely observed by our member local authorities that the fee paid for householder applications does not cover the true cost of assessing those applications. Benchmarking research from the Planning Advisory Service shows that the average cost of processing a householder application far exceeds the fee (2015 cost of £408 compared to the £131 fee). 

The resultant impact from non-cost recovery on householder fees is the council taxpayer subsidising the service - which in this case tends to benefit one individual or household. 

Question 90: If no, do you support increasing the fee by a smaller amount (at a level less than full cost recovery) and if so, what should the fee increase be? For example, a 50 per cent increase to the householder fee would increase the application fee from £258 to £387.

We agree with the proposal to increase householder application fees to meet cost recovery. 

Question 91: If we proceed to increase householder fees to meet cost recovery, we have estimated that to meet cost-recovery, the householder application fee should be increased to £528. Do you agree with this estimate?

Whilst we are supportive of the increase to householder application fees for cost recovery, the consultation proposals do not contain the calculation by which the proposed new fee was determined. 

As costs can vary across the country, we leave evidence of costs required to meet full recovery of householder application determinations to individual local authorities. 

Question 92: Are there any applications for which the current fee is inadequate? Please explain your reasons and provide evidence on what you consider the correct fee should be.

Yes – there are application fees which are inadequate, in that they neither recognise the complexity of the application nor make headway towards cost recovery.

Local authorities need the ability to recover the costs of processing prior approval notifications, associated with the exercise of permitted development rights (PD), and therefore should be able to charge a commensurate fee. In a survey conducted by the LGA in 2018 nearly 85 per cent of councils responded that the cost of administering each prior approval process was considerably higher than the £96 fee set by the Government.

The Government’s own research highlights that the loss of planning fees when assessing prior approval notifications is problematic for local authorities. The interpretation of prior approval processes can be subjective, and with burgeoning case law can create uncertainties which can increase resource required to adequately assess notifications. Further, PD adds another level of confusion for members of the public to understand, introducing added complexities which contradict the public’s flexible perception of planning, and can therefore exacerbate levels of communication and engagement required with the public and neighbours for certain schemes. The research also notes that owing to tighter deadlines for decisions, applications coming through the traditional planning application route can be delayed as prior approvals are prioritised.

We call on the Government to urgently revoke permitted development rights in order to strengthen the role of local plans and local communities in decision-making. 

Further, fee structures for applications for the approval of details reserved by condition are inadequate. Local authorities should have the flexibility to set their own planning-related fees to allow true cost recovery.

Last year the Government consulted on proposals to double retrospective planning application fees - we supported these proposals as these application types often involve prior work from local authorities, such as enforcement officers reviewing reports of potential breaches, site visits and determining need for retrospective applications. As this enforcement work has no fee attributed to it, increasing retrospective planning application fees could help towards funding enforcement services. It was however determined that in order to ensure that the introduction of the national fee increase in December 2023 was not delayed, proposals to double fees for retrospective applications would be reviewed at the “next available opportunity”. We urge the Government to enact these changes. 

Question 93: Are there any application types for which fees are not currently charged but which should require a fee? Please explain your reasons and provide evidence on what you consider the correct fee should be.

Yes – there are a number of planning applications for which a charge is not currently applied but require a fee, including listed building consent, works to trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order, and consent to undertake demolition on conservation areas.

A commensurate fee must be applied, as in the current system the entire application service is subsidised by the council taxpayer. 

Question 94: Do you consider that each local planning authority should be able to set its own (non-profit making) planning application fee?

Yes – we welcome the government’s proposals to give local authorities the flexibility to set their own fees. We address our thoughts further in Question 95.

Question 95: What would be your preferred model for localisation of planning fees?

Allowing local authorities to set their own planning application fees is hugely welcomed and will help to address growing and real concerns that planning departments are facing regarding resourcing and capacity constraints. It must be recognised however that increasing planning fees will not automatically decrease the number of planning role vacancies in planning departments across the country, nor will it solve historic issues of staff retention. However, the flexibility set planning fees will slowly help to address the national operating shortfall in planning departments and provide better value for money from local authorities for the taxpayer.

We entirely support Model 2 – Local Variation (from default national fee). As the consultation sets out, this model “would not place a mandatory duty on all local planning authorities to set their own fees if they are content that the nationally-set fee will cover their costs, but would allow authorities who wish to set their own fees, within the existing fee categories and exemptions set by the Secretary of State, to have discretion to do so”. 

Question 96: Do you consider that planning fees should be increased, beyond cost recovery, for planning applications services, to fund wider planning services?

It is welcome that Government recognises the important role authorities have in place-making and the wider impacts a fully funded and operational planning service can have for local communities, including through providing heritage, conservation and design services to support any new development.  

We therefore believe that any decision on permitting fees to be increased beyond cost recovery to fund planning services should go hand in hand with discussions around the sustainability of local authorities’ finances. Overall, local authorities face a funding gap of more than £6 billion over the next two years. The current system of funding local government is out of date, opaque, overly complex, and limits the ability of councils to be more self-sufficient by raising income from other sources. Ensuring local government is financially stable is fundamental to the government being able to deliver its wider policy objectives. A stable funding environment is also key to maximising local authorities’ potential as place-makers and delivering the best results for our communities. 

Question 97: What wider planning services, if any, other than planning applications (development management) services, do you consider could be paid for by planning fees?

Planning enforcement activities play a vital role in upholding the integrity of the planning system. Planning enforcement activities are not income generating, and yet they are both politically and publicly demanding and provide the foundation on which the planning system and legislation are held. The RTPI’s research shows that 89 per cent of planning departments are experiencing an enforcement backlog, and 80 per cent of authorities do not have the staff to meet workload demands.

The research also highlighted that “difficulties with running the enforcement service under its current obligations also have implications where Government is considering adding new burdens such as the incoming policy of Biodiversity Net Gain. The current situation faced by enforcement teams is hugely challenging as low skills, a lack of staff and tight financial constraints have weakened the service.”

Question 98: Do you consider that cost recovery for relevant services provided by local authorities in relation to applications for development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008, payable by applicants, should be introduced?

Yes – cost recovery for local authorities in relation to applications for development consent orders (DCO) should be introduced. Local authorities not only have no decision-making powers in the DCO process but also supply their relevant planning services for ‘free’ (at substantial cost to the council taxpayer).

Question 99: If yes, please explain any particular issues that the Government may want to consider, in particular which local planning authorities should be able to recover costs and the relevant services which they should be able to recover costs for, and whether host authorities should be able to waive fees where planning performance agreements are made.

Both the host (both upper and lower tier, if applicable) and relevant neighbouring authorities should be able to recover appropriate costs incurred through their role and engagement with the DCO process. This should include staffing costs, community engagement and consultation, as well as the preparing of materials and evidence-based documents.  

Question 100: What limitations, if any, should be set in regulations or through guidance in relation to local authorities’ ability to recover costs?

 Local authorities should be permitted to recoup up to the full and true costs of engaging in the development consent order process for NSIPs. 

Question 101: Please provide any further information on the impacts of full or partial cost recovery are likely to be for local planning authorities and applicants. We would particularly welcome evidence of the costs associated with work undertaken by local authorities in relation to applications for development consent.

Individual local authorities are best placed to evidence the costs associated with work undertaken in relation to DCO process applications. 

Question 102: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

Pre-applications, particularly for major applications, are greatly supported by local authorities and are vital for securing development which responds to local policy and community priorities. The Government should look to strengthen the role of pre-applications in the planning process, and give consideration to how Statements of Community Involvement could be bolstered through this process to ensure there is early community buy-in for schemes. 

Local authorities are best placed to make decisions about funding local services, including planning departments. There have previously been calls to ringfence funding to ensure any uplift in fees results in direct impact on quality and speed of planning services. The decisions on funding allocations or ringfencing should be made at the local authority level, based on the individual funding gap (or surplus) their planning department is in.

That being said, local authority planning departments have borne the brunt of budget cuts since 2010. Between 2009/10 and 2020/21, local authority net spending per person on planning dropped by 59 per cent, the highest of any service, according to calculations by the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank. The RTPI says that net expenditure by planning authorities dropped from £844m in 2009/10 to £480m in 2020/21.

Overall, local authorities face a funding gap of more than £6 billion over the next two years. The current system of funding local government is out of date, opaque, overly complex, and limits the ability of councils to be more self-sufficient by raising income from other sources. Ensuring local government is financially stable is fundamental to the government being able to deliver its wider policy objectives.

Question 103: Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements? Are there any alternatives you think we should consider?

We do not agree that the trigger for transitional arrangements should be a blanket, arbitrary figure or gap of 200 dwellings or more between the local authority’s revised Local Housing Need (LHN) figure derived by the proposed new Standard Methodology and the figure set out in the adopted/proposed plan. A more appropriate and proportionate approach would be to set a percentage difference.

The transitional arrangements are complex and we urge the Government to undertake an assessment of all Local Development Schemes to fully consider the number of plans that fall into each of the transitional arrangements and what appropriate measures need to be put in place to support these authorities. This could include ensuring the Planning Inspectorate are adequately prepared and resourced for changes to timetables for submissions for examination in certain time periods. 

It is welcome that the Government will provide direct funding support to those authorities that will need to undertake unforeseen additional work and reopen engagement with communities, and we urge Government to engage with these authorities as quickly as possible to understand the full costs associated with doing so. 

With regards to decision-making, the transitional arrangements will not protect and prioritise the plan-led system for development. The introduction of new housing targets which far exceed existing will allow speculative development to be ripe in areas which do not have a 5-year housing land supply which reflects their new figures. This will damage community trust in both the local authority and the planning system. 

Question 104: Do you agree with the proposed transitional arrangements?

We welcome the government setting out their intention to move forward with the new-style of plan-making, as set out in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 with proposed details consulted upon last year. 

Clarity on the introduction date of the new-style of plan-making, beyond either summer to autumn 2025, should be set out as soon as possible, alongside a full response to the consultation proposals. It would also be welcome for the government to clarify if there will be a deadline for which plans submitted under the current plan-making system must be adopted. 

Question 105: Do you have any other suggestions relating to the proposals in this chapter?

The final proposals in this chapter relate to digitisation and National Development Management Policies (NDMPs). 

We support the government’s intentions to speed up and digitise the planning system both at a local and national level, seeking to make it more accessible and increasing the opportunity for engagement for all members of the community.

We recommend the government continues to work closely with local government to shape the way in which national planning policy, and the wider planning system itself, is presented and accessed. This work should be shared widely with the sector, and the LGA would be happy to facilitate engagement / learning webinars between the government and local authorities. 

We recognise that nationalising policies that apply in all areas in the form of NDMP’s may speed up the production of plan-making and reduce duplication in local plans. They may also help to ‘level the playing field’ with standards and expectations of development across the country. However, in the absence of any material detail on the type and scope of NDMP’s, it is impossible to comment on the real impact they may have on local authorities to plan effectively at the local level. Whatever their scope, flexibility must be built into the system to enable councils to respond to local, complex and changing circumstances.

We are concerned that, as currently set out, a determination would be made in favour of the NDMP when there is conflict with the local development plan. This undermines a local, plan-led system and the Government’s aspiration to empower local leaders and communities. The local development plan is subject to robust and extensive testing during its preparation, which includes a thorough examination process to establish its soundness. Therefore, the development plan should carry full legal weight and particularly over policies and plans that are not subject to the same level of scrutiny.

We urge the Government to come forward with their proposals for NDMPs as soon as possible. 

Question 106: Do you have any views on the impacts of the above proposals for you, or the group or business you represent and on anyone with a relevant protected characteristic? If so, please explain who, which groups, including those with protected characteristics, or which businesses may be impacted and how. Is there anything that could be done to mitigate any impact identified?

We urge the Government to undertake and publish a review of the equalities impact that proposals contained in this consultation may have on those with protected characteristics.