5
Recommendation
First Report - The future of the planni…
Rejected
We welcome the Government’s proposal that having an up to date Local Plan should be a statutory requirement on local authorities. We also welcome the proposal that Local Plans should be more focused and shorter. But we do not agree that the 30-month timeframe proposed for the development of Local …
Read more
We welcome the Government’s proposal that having an up to date Local Plan should be a statutory requirement on local authorities. We also welcome the proposal that Local Plans should be more focused and shorter. But we do not agree that the 30-month timeframe proposed for the development of Local Plans is enough to ensure high quality. We are particularly concerned about the challenges the proposal poses for statutory consultees, especially as all plans will have to be addressed within the same timeframe. The Government should extend the 30-month timeframe for the initial production of Local Plans as it is too short for creating new plans from scratch. The Government must ensure that statutory consultees have time to comment on Local Plans. The Government should consider a staggered roll-out of the new types of Local Plans across the country. It should be permissible and straightforward to undertake quick updates of Local Plans every two years, including with appropriate time for public consultation. The Government should consider the case for confirming that the National Grid is a statutory consultee in new Local Plans. (Paragraph 45) The future of the planning system in England 101
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly rejects extending the 30-month timeframe for Local Plan production, deeming it achievable, but notes local authorities will have flexibility for partial updates and it will provide details on the transition to the new system.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
25
Recommendation
First Report - The future of the planni…
Rejected
There is a case for reforming the Community Infrastructure Levy, but it is less clear that Section 106 agreements needed replacing. The Government should be mindful of the cumulative effect of the challenges posed to affordable housing provision by the proposed abolition of Section 106, the raising of the threshold …
Read more
There is a case for reforming the Community Infrastructure Levy, but it is less clear that Section 106 agreements needed replacing. The Government should be mindful of the cumulative effect of the challenges posed to affordable housing provision by the proposed abolition of Section 106, the raising of the threshold for small sites exempt from affordable housing, and the expansion of permitted development rights. We also welcome the Government’s decision in April 2021 not to proceed with a higher threshold for exemption from having to provide affordable housing to sites of forty or fifty dwellings. The Government should reconsider the proposals of the 2017 review of the Community Infrastructure Levy as an alternative to their national Infrastructure Levy. If the Government does proceed with its Infrastructure Levy proposal, a localised rate should be set reflecting local land values. The Government needs to clarify who will set these localised rates, and whether these will differ by local authority or some other sub-national area. The Government must guarantee there will be no reduction in the amount of affordable housing, including social housing, being delivered as a result of their proposed changes. The Government must recognise that the Levy will not raise enough money to pay for all infrastructure, especially large scale sub-regional and regional investments across much of the country. Further inequalities will need to be addressed through redistribution of Levy funds and through increases in infrastructure spending from central Government. We also recommend leaving the Mayoral Infrastructure Levies in place. (Paragraph 176) Resources and skills
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government confirms it has considered the 2017 CIL review but is proceeding with its proposed new Infrastructure Levy, which will be introduced through a phased rollout. The response does not guarantee no reduction in affordable housing, recognise funding limitations, or address Mayoral Infrastructure Levies, …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
29
Recommendation
First Report - The future of the planni…
Rejected
We agree with evidence that called for the protection of the green spaces in the Green Belt; whilst also recognising that not all Green Belt land are green spaces. A review should examine the purpose of the Green Belt, including whether it continues to serve that purpose, how the public …
Read more
We agree with evidence that called for the protection of the green spaces in the Green Belt; whilst also recognising that not all Green Belt land are green spaces. A review should examine the purpose of the Green Belt, including whether it continues to serve that purpose, how the public understand it, what should be criteria for inclusion, and what additional protections might be appropriate. The creation of new Local Plans also provides an opportunity for local reviews of Green Belts and the Government should help identify those local authorities where such reviews are particularly urgent. Local Plans can also relieve pressure on Green Belts by prioritising developments on brownfield sites. The Government should ensure there is sufficient funding provided to support their decontamination.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for a national review of the Green Belt, stating it has no such plans and remains committed to protecting and enhancing it as set out in its manifesto and existing National Planning Policy Framework.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government