Stick to "ambition" of preparing and adopting local plans within 30 months, Ministry tells local planning authorities
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has told planning authorities and other stakeholders “to focus energy and resources on working with the government to deliver the ambition of local plans and minerals and waste plans that are routinely prepared and adopted in 30 months”.
The direction came in the Government’s formal response to its consultation on plan-making reforms.
The consultation asked whether respondents agreed with a proposal to set out in policy that planning authorities should adopt their plan, at the latest, 30 months after the plan preparation process begins.
A total of 298 respondents answered the question. Of those, 100 (34%) agreed with the proposal, 123 (41%) did not agree and 75 (25%) were indifferent.
In the response the MHCLG acknowledged that only a very small number of respondents fully agreed with the proposal for a 30-month requirement, “with a few suggesting that penalties and interventions and/or incentives should be imposed in cases of failure, and that the proposed 30-months should be set out in regulations”.
It said there was more support for the proposals to speed up plan-making and implement a specific timeframe in principle, specifically amongst developers, interest groups and other private sector organisations.
“In contrast, most planning authorities did not support the specific proposal and felt that the challenges in achieving it were so significant that they could not even support the principle of introducing a fixed timeframe for plan-making,” the response noted.
A range of challenges in achieving local plans in 30 months were cited across both respondents that agreed and disagreed with the proposal, including:
- The need for planning authority and Planning Inspectorate resources to deliver in such short timeframes
- The length of time taken to process representations
- Lengthy political decision-making timeframes
- Procurement timeframes
- General complexity of preparing plans, in particular relating to identifying and selecting sites and dealing with cross-boundary matters
As for respondents that were unsure about the proposal, the response said “the general feeling was that 30 months could be achievable if the government directs more clearly how potentially contentious issues (e.g. housing need and requirement) should be addressed; for example, some suggested that housing need could be allocated at a sub-regional or regional level”.
In the formal response, the MHCLG said the Government recognised that progress and adoption of a local plan takes on average seven years to produce, with only around one third of local planning authorities having adopted a local plan in the last five years.
It also noted that of the two thirds of local planning authorities that have not adopted a local plan in the last five years, only about 5% have published a new plan and only about 10% have submitted one for examination.
“Slow progress in their preparation means local plans are at greater risk of being out-of-date upon adoption, creating uncertainty for communities and holding back development where it is needed,” the Ministry argued.
The response pointed out that the previous government had proposed setting out an expectation in policy that plans should be prepared and adopted in 30 months. It added that there were recent examples of planning authorities preparing a plan in just over 30 months within the current system.
“It was therefore considered that a 30 month timeframe struck the appropriate balance between needing plans to be prepared more quickly and kept up to date more effectively, with a realistic view of what is deemed achievable. Through a wider package of plan-making and other planning system reforms to achieve efficiencies and streamlining, there was a strong belief that a 30 month timeframe could be widely achieved.”
Noting “the strong sentiment expressed around these proposals”, the MHCLG said: “While this government recognises the challenges faced by authorities in preparing plans at pace, we remain committed to accelerating the process. Plans are at the heart of our proposals to get Britain building.
“Therefore, in support of our aim to ensure universal plan coverage across England, we maintain that planning authorities and other stakeholders should focus energy and resources on working with the government to deliver the ambition of local plans and minerals and waste plans that are routinely prepared and adopted in 30 months.”
It argued that its plan-making reforms – such as the introduction of gateways; shorter, simpler and more standardised content focused on the core principles of plan-making; and a series of digital transformation initiatives – would support this aim.
“But we recognise that this alone will not be enough to deliver the transformative change needed, especially in light of the comments around the complexities of preparing plans.”
The MHCLG said it was therefore committed working closely with the sector to develop a more comprehensive suite of guidance, tools and templates, which will be accessible via a new consolidated home for plan-making products on GOV.UK.
“This will set out clearer expectations for plan-making and provide much more support than under the current system, with a particular focus on addressing the most significant barriers to producing plans more quickly,” the Ministry suggested.
It added that it would also work with its partners, including the Planning Advisory Service, to put in place the support that plan-makers need at the outset of plan preparation, with a greater focus on project setup, management and governance processes.
This will be supported through the Ministry’s intention to introduce a template for Project Initiation Documents (PIDs).
“More broadly, the government is providing funding to foster a pipeline of planners for the future by recruiting an additional 300 planners, to assist planning authorities with additional capacity to adapt to new ways of working and can focus resources on plan-making.”
The rest of the MHCLG’s response can be viewed here.
