National planning rework sees new PD pushback

Three-quarters of respondents to a consultation on the government’s latest planning upheaval have objected to proposals for greater permitted development. Controversial permitted development rights offer fast-track automatic approvals that bypass the planning system. Increased usage of PD has been criticised for an uptick in poor-quality housing, with schemes branded “the slums of the future”. Earlier this year, housing secretary Robert Jenrick unveiled changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, promising to put beauty and design at the forefront of development. This included restrictions to Article 4 directions that allow councils to reject permitted development. The changes stipulate that Article 4 should only be used “where this is essential to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts” and should apply to the smallest geographical area. In the consultation, some 73% of respondents said they did not agree with these changes to the planning policy, with 23% backing the changes. This was the only question that saw a majority in opposition to the proposed legislation. Respondents said there was no evidence to justify any change. Some said it would limit a local authority’s ability to plan strategically for their area and would damage high streets and employment opportunities. Some 1,178 people and entities responded to the consultation – a mix of individuals, local authorities, neighbourhood planning groups and private sector organisations, including developers. There were 599 responses to the changes relating to permitted development and Article 4. Responding to the proposals, the London Assembly’s cross-party planning and regeneration committee raised concerns over “low-quality housing… sometimes also in unsuitable locations, the pressure on local employment space including rising rents and eviction of occupiers; the lack of affordable housing and community infrastructure contributions; and loss of funding for local authorities”. It added: “If the proposals under this consultation are adopted, we are concerned that the issues above would become further widespread.” The government said it has refined the wording, in particular emphasising adverse impacts “such as the loss of the essential core of a primary shopping area in ways which would undermine its vitality and viability”. In the government’s response to the consultation it also recognises “a number of concerns surrounding local authority resources”. The response adds: “We are exploring a resources and skills strategy, and options to introduce a new planning fee structure to support changes proposed.” This builds on proposals in last year’s planning white paper that suggest developers and landowners take on a larger share of planning funding. Those proposals reason that the bill should go to “the beneficiaries of planning gain”. Elsewhere in the consultation, respondents were broadly in support of updates to the NPPF. However, notably, a third said they did not think it was in support of sustainable development. This has subsequently been reiterated by the UK Green Building Council, which said it was “disappointing” that suggestions to align the NPPF with the national net zero target were not taken forward. To send feedback, e-mail emma.rosser@eg.co.uk or tweet @EmmaARosser or @EGPropertyNews Photo © Beech Holdings